On 2/5/18 5:54 AM, Attila Kinali wrote:
On Sun, 4 Feb 2018 09:21:54 -0500
Bob kb8tq <kb...@n1k.org> wrote:
The images on this page gives a good impression about the current
skill-level in that area:
https://www.azonano.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=2740
<https://www.azonano.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=2740>
The gotcha is shown in the pictures. First point is that they are etching *very*
small features. A 5 MHz 3rd overtone blank is way thicker than what they are
playing with. The second issue is that even at small scale the walls are going
non-parallel.
That's exactly the issue here. While SAW resonators benefit quite a lot
from the processing skills learned from semiconductor fabrication, these
skills do not translate into BAW manufacturing. SAW resonators are built
etching or depositing small features ontop of a SiO2 wafer that is supposed
to be as flat as possible. On the other hand BAW oscillators are 3D structures
by themselves. They are lens shaped (thus not flat) to keep the oscillation
energy trapped in the center of the slap, thus allowing the edges to be used
for mounting/contacting, with minimal damping of the oscillation.
Yes, the shapes are simple. But not only because that's the only shapes
we know how to build, but also because these shapes allow us to calculate
how the crystal will oscialate and because the simpler the structure the
easier it is to build it with high precision and accuracy.
It would be possible to use edging of surface structures into the
crystal to form a Bragg reflector (instead of the lense shape).
But I have no idea how well it works. Considering that it is easier
to build a slap that is flat and then etching structures on it, than
to form a 3D structure, I wonder why I have not read about anyone
doing exactly that (beside for SAW structures).
Follow the money - or lack thereof - Folks are happy with the existing
technology - If I'm flying a science mission that needs a space
qualified Ultra Stable Oscillator - I've already budgeted my several
million dollars, claiming that I'll just use what we already know how to
build, and I spend no more proposal pages talking about it. I certainly
am not going to say "instead of spending $1M/oscillator for my 2
oscillators, I'm going to spend $5M on an experimental process to change
how the resonator is made, and by the way, it might not work"
Would using ion milling and other modern fabrication techniques lead to
an oscillator with *significantly* better performance or *significantly*
lower cost?
For those users for whom this is important, research focuses on looking
for another qualitatively different way to get there - That's sort of
what the CSAC and the Deep Space Atomic Clock (DSAC) are about - the ion
trap clock for DSAC gives you long term performance BETTER than a USO.
Although probably not at a lower cost, yet, there is potential for it to
be so.
The CSAC gives you "good accuracy at low power", compared to an OCXO -
less than 1/10th the power.
_______________________________________________
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.
