On 8/27/12 10:45 PM, Chris Albertson wrote:
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Jim Lux <jim...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On 8/27/12 4:15 PM, Rick Karlquist wrote:
Several decades ago, the concept of the "smart clock" arose
at what was then HP. The idea was as discussed here to
"characterize" past aging, "predict" future aging, and
then "correct" the aging.
We know what a OCXO is and a TCXO is. I was at a presentation at work a
whike back and they called what you describe a "MPCXO" or MicroProcessor
Compensated XO. They said the characteristics were between the OCXO and
TCXO
Doesn't the thunderbolt do this. I think it watches the aging rate of the
OCXO and adjusts during hold over.
Not really. The MCXO has a one time calibration for frequency vs
temperature that's programmed into it (and some use *very* clever ways
to measure the temperature). The disciplining algorithms in a GPSDO are
a bit smarter; some explicitly develop a model for the f vs T and apply
it, in others it's essentially embedded in a higher order filter which
takes the measured T, along with other parameters, into the filter.
I don't know if the GPSDOs try to do a time series fit/model (at least
for low order terms) to deal with things like diurnal variation. They
could.
I should note that the MCXO approach, popularized as a "better TCXO" in
a small low power package, is also used in some software defined radios,
except that there's no separate microcontroller. The frequency vs
temperature characteristic is just embedded in the other algorithms in
the radio's host processor.
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
