Hi,
Darn, not reading all the notes. Again.
Well, in that case, scaling should be done... then you get average of
198,5075 ns and 149,8 ps RMS jitter, with 1,1 ns peak-to-peak.
The jitter is okish then, but a little better would indeed be nice.
Cheers,
Magnus
On 12/29/2014 01:55 PM, Li Ang wrote:
Hi Magnus,
The unit of these data is not ns but reference clock cycles (100ns).
TDC_GP22 measures the time between the edge of tdc_start and
tdc_stop1, then it measures the reference clock automaticly. The result you
get from it is the ratio of them.
2014-12-29 19:58 GMT+08:00 Magnus Danielson <mag...@rubidium.dyndns.org>:
Hi,
Some quick statistic-processing.
Histogram of your data:
1.979 0
1.980 2
1.981 46
1.982 173
1.983 523
1.984 1031
1.985 1301
1.986 1131
1.987 648
1.988 236
1.989 8
1.990 1
1.991 0
The total sample count is 5100 (wc -l only gives 5099 since there is a
missing end of line, but word count is 5100).
The average is about 1,985075 ns and it is reasonably gaussian, but with
some systematics, notice how the slope is more abrupt on the higher end
than the lower end. A quick and dirty spreadsheet gives me about 2,243 ps
RMS jitter, which isn't all that bad. Yes, it will spread out to that 11 ps
peak-to-peak jitter, but it is to be expected.
It's pretty respectable for a home-built.
Cheers,
Magnus
On 12/28/2014 03:19 PM, Li Ang wrote:
Hi Bob,
I did some test according to your suggestions. DUT is a symmetricom
x72
rb oscillator. Also, I've tried signal generator as the DUT. R&S SMY01 is
not as good as HP8662A but that the best I've got. The signal geneator is
also using FE5650 as ref clock.
According to my test with the TDC today, this unit is not producing
very
stable data.
I don't have accurate pulse generator, so this is how I test the TDC:
0) power the board with battery.
1) use FPGA to generate time pulse:
reg [15:0] shift;
always @(posedge refclk10M) begin
shift <= {shift[14:0], sw_gate};
end
assign tdc_start = shift[3];
assign tdc_stop1 = shift[5];
2) use MCU to pull down sw_gate, the FPGA sync it to refclk10M domain and
generate input signal for TDC.
3) use TDC to test the time betwen tdc_start and tdc_stop1
The result is in tdc_test.zip. number * 100ns = time between tdc_start and
tdc_stop1. (TDC highspeed clock is refclk10M/2).
There 2 issues from the test:
1) As we can see from the data, the number is around 1.98x not 2.00x. So
there is about 2ns delay between tdc_start and tdc_stop1 for this simple
test code. If it is from the PCB trace and something inside FPGA, this
part
should be a constant value at certain temperature. I can calculate it by
measuring 2 cycles and 3 cylces. My current code has not implement this
part, it should provide some improvement. 2ns time error for 1s gate, that
is something.
2) For a 90ps TDC, I think the result should be something like +-0.001
cycle. But I get something like +-0.003 cycle. I do not know the reason
for
now.
2014-12-27 22:58 GMT+08:00 Bob Camp <kb...@n1k.org>:
Hi
(In reply to several posts. It’s easier for me this way)
Ok, that’s good news !!! (and useful data)
Your counter performance degraded a bit when you put in 5 db and not much
when you put in 8 db.
It’s also maybe *too* good news. I suspect that cross talk between the
channels may be impacting your results.
Next step is to try it with two independent sources and a bit more
attenuation. When you try it with two sources, you need to attenuate
first
one source and then switch the attenuators to the other source. That will
help you see if crosstalk from one channel is more of a problem than from
the other channel.
One parts hint:
Cable TV attenuators are much cheaper than their fancy 50 ohm
MIniCircuits
cousins. They are also something you can pick up down at the corner
electronics store. For this sort of testing they are perfectly fine to
use.
At this point in the testing the mismatch between 75 ohms and 50 ohms is
not a big deal. You will need to adapt connectors, but you probably still
will save money.
=======
Op-amps that have enough bandwidth and performance for a high input
impedance counter input are rare items. They also are not cheap. Often
they
come as some sort of current feedback part with low(er) input impedance.
If
you want your counter to work to 300 MHz, it should accept a 300 MHz
square
wave. That might mean passing the third or even the fifth harmonic of the
square wave. An input channel with 900 or 1500 MHz bandwidth is quite a
challenge.
One very simple solution is to just grab a high speed comparator like the
one used by Fluke / Pendulum (ADCMP565). Drive it directly with your
input
or clock. Make it your front end device. That’s not an ideal solution,
but
it will give you the bandwidth and a reasonable input impedance. It
requires messy things like a negative supply or a “fake” ground (so
would
the op amp). It also has an ECL output that needs to be converted to
match
your FPGA ( hint: use the clock inputs, they are LVPECL compatible).
Driving into the FPGA with a differential signal is probably needed to
reduce crosstalk.
No matter how you do it, input channels are *not* an easy thing to do
properly. Even on commercial counters, they often are easy to fool.
Designing one is only the start. Fully testing it is equally complex.
=========
Do not underrate your skills in any way. You are doing far more on this
project than any of the rest of the list members have done. We have
talked
and talked forever about these chips. We talk a lot about these ideas. We
suggest lots of complex solutions to various possible problems (like the
expensive comparator I suggested above). What we almost never do is
actually build a counter. If we build something we don’t fully test it. I
have never seen any list member share their results the way you have. I
suspect that most of us (yes this includes me) are a bit to scared of the
response.
Please do not stop your work. Keep letting us know how it is going. This
is very exciting !!!
Bob
On Dec 27, 2014, at 8:22 AM, Li Ang <lll...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Bob,
Here is the data and test scheme.
It does not show much difference.
2014-12-26 22:12 GMT+08:00 Bob Camp <kb...@n1k.org>:
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
