Re: [time-nuts] Very stable synthesizer, alternative to PTS(Programmed Test Sources) x10 or 040?
Jim Lux wrote: On 7/10/13 12:29 PM, Didier Juges wrote: Jim said: It's like a HP 8663B (not the modern Agilent E8663).. very low noise, The Agilent E8663 has similar SSB phase noise spec as the older HP 8662A (-144dBc/Hz @ 10 kHz with option UNY, versus -143 for the 8662). You seem to imply they are different. Can you elaborate? Of course, the Agilent has many more features and 0.001Hz resolution, and the 8662 only goes to 990MHz (I think, I should know, I have two thanks to JohnM...), but are they that much different in pure phase noise or ADEV? Didier It's not the phase noise that raised the problems for us. It's that when you program them for a sweep, it goes in steps that aren't phase continuous AND the behavior when you feed a signal into the FM input isn't the same. The HP 8663B was, at the core, a really good phase locked VCO, so when a sweep is programmed, the output is phase continuous as it sweeps. This is a huge problem when you are testing a very narrow band tracking loop (our deep space transponders have a loop bandwidth of a few Hz) I can't remember the details on the FM input, but it too has some behavior that we depended on. We take the output of the 8663B and run it into a x7 to make the 7150 MHz uplink and/or the 8450 MHz downlink frequencies. Part of the reason we do a x7 is so that any leakage from the synthesizer isn't in band for our receiver under test. A typical input level for test is -150 to -160 dBm, so leakage at the wrong frequency can easily be more than the desired signal. Now you're confusing me. As far as I am aware, there was the 8663A which appeared in the early eighties. And much later came the E8663B, and subsequently the E8663D. I've never seen an 8663B from HP. From the context I would guess that you really mean the 8663A, and not the 8663B, right? Cheers Stefan ___ 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.
Re: [time-nuts] Very stable synthesizer, alternative to PTS(Programmed Test Sources) x10 or 040?
On 7/11/13 12:45 AM, Stefan Heinzmann wrote: Jim Lux wrote: On 7/10/13 12:29 PM, Didier Juges wrote: Jim said: Now you're confusing me. As far as I am aware, there was the 8663A which appeared in the early eighties. And much later came the E8663B, and subsequently the E8663D. I've never seen an 8663B from HP. From the context I would guess that you really mean the 8663A, and not the 8663B, right? Yes.. sorry.. got in the habit of typing the B... The Agilent 8663B, while having similar data book performance to the HP 8663A, has a different internal design. And, we depended on the idiosyncracies of that design. As noted elsewhere, Fluke has a more 8663A-like device (the Fluke 9640, I think... but I'd have to check some old emails to find out) ___ 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.
Re: [time-nuts] Very stable synthesizer, alternative to PTS(Programmed Test Sources) x10 or 040?
Hi Having hooked up a 9854 and tried it with realistic settings - it's not that great. If you run it at magic frequencies (where it's essentially just a divider) it looks like a divider. Bob On Jul 9, 2013, at 5:03 AM, Anders Time anderst...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks a lot for the input. I have been looking at the Fluke 6160b, but I thought that there might be something as good out there that is not 40years old! I want to use the synthesizer as a flexible offset source for beat frequency measurements. So the frequency range is 5 to 30MHz approx. I read Rubiola et al. Phase noise and amplitude noise in DDS yesterday and thinks that it might be worth a try to test the AD9854 or AD9912 to see if it is good enough. If I understand the paper right they get really good results. Is there any one with experience? Thanks Anders ___ 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.
Re: [time-nuts] Very stable synthesizer, alternative to PTS(Programmed Test Sources) x10 or 040?
We use an Agilent 8644B where I work as the master oscillator for an electron cyclotron storage ring. Electrons at 2GeV don't like to be pushed around and are very sensitive to phase noise, so the feedback loop that adjusts the frequency uses the FM input for fine adjustment. -- eric On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:57 AM, Bob Camp li...@rtty.us wrote: Hi Having hooked up a 9854 and tried it with realistic settings - it's not that great. If you run it at magic frequencies (where it's essentially just a divider) it looks like a divider. Bob On Jul 9, 2013, at 5:03 AM, Anders Time anderst...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks a lot for the input. I have been looking at the Fluke 6160b, but I thought that there might be something as good out there that is not 40years old! I want to use the synthesizer as a flexible offset source for beat frequency measurements. So the frequency range is 5 to 30MHz approx. I read Rubiola et al. Phase noise and amplitude noise in DDS yesterday and thinks that it might be worth a try to test the AD9854 or AD9912 to see if it is good enough. If I understand the paper right they get really good results. Is there any one with experience? Thanks Anders ___ 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.
Re: [time-nuts] Very stable synthesizer, alternative to PTS(Programmed Test Sources) x10 or 040?
Jim said: It's like a HP 8663B (not the modern Agilent E8663).. very low noise, The Agilent E8663 has similar SSB phase noise spec as the older HP 8662A (-144dBc/Hz @ 10 kHz with option UNY, versus -143 for the 8662). You seem to imply they are different. Can you elaborate? Of course, the Agilent has many more features and 0.001Hz resolution, and the 8662 only goes to 990MHz (I think, I should know, I have two thanks to JohnM...), but are they that much different in pure phase noise or ADEV? Didier On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Jim Lux jim...@earthlink.net wrote: On 7/8/13 7:55 AM, Ed Palmer wrote: In 2002, this document: THE CRYSTAL OSCILLATOR CHARACTERIZATION FACILITY AT THE AEROSPACE CORPORATION http://www.pttimeeting.org/**archivemeetings/2002papers/**paper32.pdfhttp://www.pttimeeting.org/archivemeetings/2002papers/paper32.pdf stated: The Programmed Test Sources, Inc. PTS model #250M6NIGSX-51 low-noise frequency synthesizer is used to offset the frequency reference to obtain the desired beat frequency. In our previous system, we used a Fluke 6160B frequency synthesizer, since the Fluke 6160B frequency synthesizer had the lowest noise contribution of all the frequency synthesizers on the market at that time. The reason for having the low-noise frequency synthesizer is the synthesizer noise contributions to the system noise-floor. Unfortunately, Fluke has discontinued manufacturing and maintaining this synthesizer. Therefore, we looked at the new synthesizers on the market and found that the PTS synthesizer was the closest to the Fluke 6160B frequency synthesizer in terms of noise floor. Sounds like a working 6160B would be a nice thing to have. Unfortunately, it's too large for my already overcrowded lab. :-( It's like a HP 8663B (not the modern Agilent E8663).. very low noise, not made any more, I don't think Agilent will even repair them. We've got lots of them sitting on the floor, partly dead, at work: they were the workhorse of the Deep Space Network systems. Fluke does make a modern copy of the HP8663B with all the same peculiarities (e.g. smooth sweep, modulation input, etc.) which the Agilent does not do. (for instance, we feed the signal from a 3325 at around 10 MHz into the FM port on the 8663 and then filter to select just the modulation sideband, which then gets multiplied up to the desired frequency) __**_ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/** mailman/listinfo/time-nutshttps://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.
Re: [time-nuts] Very stable synthesizer, alternative to PTS(Programmed Test Sources) x10 or 040?
On 7/10/13 12:29 PM, Didier Juges wrote: Jim said: It's like a HP 8663B (not the modern Agilent E8663).. very low noise, The Agilent E8663 has similar SSB phase noise spec as the older HP 8662A (-144dBc/Hz @ 10 kHz with option UNY, versus -143 for the 8662). You seem to imply they are different. Can you elaborate? Of course, the Agilent has many more features and 0.001Hz resolution, and the 8662 only goes to 990MHz (I think, I should know, I have two thanks to JohnM...), but are they that much different in pure phase noise or ADEV? Didier It's not the phase noise that raised the problems for us. It's that when you program them for a sweep, it goes in steps that aren't phase continuous AND the behavior when you feed a signal into the FM input isn't the same. The HP 8663B was, at the core, a really good phase locked VCO, so when a sweep is programmed, the output is phase continuous as it sweeps. This is a huge problem when you are testing a very narrow band tracking loop (our deep space transponders have a loop bandwidth of a few Hz) I can't remember the details on the FM input, but it too has some behavior that we depended on. We take the output of the 8663B and run it into a x7 to make the 7150 MHz uplink and/or the 8450 MHz downlink frequencies. Part of the reason we do a x7 is so that any leakage from the synthesizer isn't in band for our receiver under test. A typical input level for test is -150 to -160 dBm, so leakage at the wrong frequency can easily be more than the desired signal. ___ 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.
Re: [time-nuts] Very stable synthesizer, alternative to PTS(Programmed Test Sources) x10 or 040?
Thanks a lot for the input. I have been looking at the Fluke 6160b, but I thought that there might be something as good out there that is not 40years old! I want to use the synthesizer as a flexible offset source for beat frequency measurements. So the frequency range is 5 to 30MHz approx. I read Rubiola et al. Phase noise and amplitude noise in DDS yesterday and thinks that it might be worth a try to test the AD9854 or AD9912 to see if it is good enough. If I understand the paper right they get really good results. Is there any one with experience? Thanks Anders ___ 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.
Re: [time-nuts] Very stable synthesizer, alternative to PTS(Programmed Test Sources) x10 or 040?
Take a look at AD 9913, just got boards may have results in a month. Bert Kehren Sent from Samsung tabletAnders Time anderst...@gmail.com wrote:Thanks a lot for the input. I have been looking at the Fluke 6160b, but I thought that there might be something as good out there that is not 40years old! I want to use the synthesizer as a flexible offset source for beat frequency measurements. So the frequency range is 5 to 30MHz approx. I read Rubiola et al. Phase noise and amplitude noise in DDS yesterday and thinks that it might be worth a try to test the AD9854 or AD9912 to see if it is good enough. If I understand the paper right they get really good results. Is there any one with experience? Thanks Anders ___ 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.
Re: [time-nuts] Very stable synthesizer, alternative to PTS(Programmed Test Sources) x10 or 040?
Hi Anders: The HP 8648() series signal generators were made for applications that required very clean signals, like testing pagers. http://www.prc68.com/I/HP8648.shtml Have Fun, Brooke Clarke http://www.PRC68.com http://www.end2partygovernment.com/2012Issues.html Anders Time wrote: Thanks a lot for the input. I have been looking at the Fluke 6160b, but I thought that there might be something as good out there that is not 40years old! I want to use the synthesizer as a flexible offset source for beat frequency measurements. So the frequency range is 5 to 30MHz approx. I read Rubiola et al. Phase noise and amplitude noise in DDS yesterday and thinks that it might be worth a try to test the AD9854 or AD9912 to see if it is good enough. If I understand the paper right they get really good results. Is there any one with experience? Thanks Anders ___ 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.
Re: [time-nuts] Very stable synthesizer, alternative to PTS(Programmed Test Sources) x10 or 040?
The best I have test by far is the Rohde SMA100A with option B22 LPN. The Agilent E8663D is very good also. The 8664/5A/B with option 004 LPN or the IFR 2041/2 are perhaps the best at a reasonable price. Thomas Knox Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 08:53:54 -0700 From: bro...@pacific.net To: time-nuts@febo.com Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Very stable synthesizer, alternative to PTS(Programmed Test Sources) x10 or 040? Hi Anders: The HP 8648() series signal generators were made for applications that required very clean signals, like testing pagers. http://www.prc68.com/I/HP8648.shtml Have Fun, Brooke Clarke http://www.PRC68.com http://www.end2partygovernment.com/2012Issues.html Anders Time wrote: Thanks a lot for the input. I have been looking at the Fluke 6160b, but I thought that there might be something as good out there that is not 40years old! I want to use the synthesizer as a flexible offset source for beat frequency measurements. So the frequency range is 5 to 30MHz approx. I read Rubiola et al. Phase noise and amplitude noise in DDS yesterday and thinks that it might be worth a try to test the AD9854 or AD9912 to see if it is good enough. If I understand the paper right they get really good results. Is there any one with experience? Thanks Anders ___ 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] Very stable synthesizer, alternative to PTS(Programmed Test Sources) x10 or 040?
I have been looking around for a very stable synthesizer(E-12 at 1s adev). The only really good information that I have found is febo.com´s measurements on the PTS synthesizers(http://www.febo.com/pages/pts_synth/). Is there any other really good alternatives to the PTS synthesizers? DDS? HP? Best Regards Anders ___ 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.
Re: [time-nuts] Very stable synthesizer, alternative to PTS(Programmed Test Sources) x10 or 040?
Hi What frequency range? Conventional DDS isn't likely to do the job. Bob On Jul 8, 2013, at 5:44 AM, Anders Time anderst...@gmail.com wrote: I have been looking around for a very stable synthesizer(E-12 at 1s adev). The only really good information that I have found is febo.com´s measurements on the PTS synthesizers(http://www.febo.com/pages/pts_synth/). Is there any other really good alternatives to the PTS synthesizers? DDS? HP? Best Regards Anders ___ 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.
Re: [time-nuts] Very stable synthesizer, alternative to PTS(Programmed Test Sources) x10 or 040?
In 2002, this document: THE CRYSTAL OSCILLATOR CHARACTERIZATION FACILITY AT THE AEROSPACE CORPORATION http://www.pttimeeting.org/archivemeetings/2002papers/paper32.pdf stated: The Programmed Test Sources, Inc. PTS model #250M6NIGSX-51 low-noise frequency synthesizer is used to offset the frequency reference to obtain the desired beat frequency. In our previous system, we used a Fluke 6160B frequency synthesizer, since the Fluke 6160B frequency synthesizer had the lowest noise contribution of all the frequency synthesizers on the market at that time. The reason for having the low-noise frequency synthesizer is the synthesizer noise contributions to the system noise-floor. Unfortunately, Fluke has discontinued manufacturing and maintaining this synthesizer. Therefore, we looked at the new synthesizers on the market and found that the PTS synthesizer was the closest to the Fluke 6160B frequency synthesizer in terms of noise floor. Sounds like a working 6160B would be a nice thing to have. Unfortunately, it's too large for my already overcrowded lab. :-( Ed On 7/8/2013 3:44 AM, Anders Time wrote: I have been looking around for a very stable synthesizer(E-12 at 1s adev). The only really good information that I have found is febo.com´s measurements on the PTS synthesizers(http://www.febo.com/pages/pts_synth/). Is there any other really good alternatives to the PTS synthesizers? DDS? HP? Best Regards Anders ___ 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.
Re: [time-nuts] Very stable synthesizer, alternative to PTS(Programmed Test Sources) x10 or 040?
I've had my eye on the Stanford Research SG 380 for some time - they boast -116dBc/Hz phase noise http://thinksrs.com/products/SG380.htm They use a pretty interesting rational approximation frequency synthesis which they discuss in detail in their operating manual. This allows them to drive down the phase noise. Too bad it's nearly $4000... Andy Bardagjy bardagjy.com On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Ed Palmer ed_pal...@sasktel.net wrote: In 2002, this document: THE CRYSTAL OSCILLATOR CHARACTERIZATION FACILITY AT THE AEROSPACE CORPORATION http://www.pttimeeting.org/**archivemeetings/2002papers/**paper32.pdfhttp://www.pttimeeting.org/archivemeetings/2002papers/paper32.pdf stated: The Programmed Test Sources, Inc. PTS model #250M6NIGSX-51 low-noise frequency synthesizer is used to offset the frequency reference to obtain the desired beat frequency. In our previous system, we used a Fluke 6160B frequency synthesizer, since the Fluke 6160B frequency synthesizer had the lowest noise contribution of all the frequency synthesizers on the market at that time. The reason for having the low-noise frequency synthesizer is the synthesizer noise contributions to the system noise-floor. Unfortunately, Fluke has discontinued manufacturing and maintaining this synthesizer. Therefore, we looked at the new synthesizers on the market and found that the PTS synthesizer was the closest to the Fluke 6160B frequency synthesizer in terms of noise floor. Sounds like a working 6160B would be a nice thing to have. Unfortunately, it's too large for my already overcrowded lab. :-( Ed On 7/8/2013 3:44 AM, Anders Time wrote: I have been looking around for a very stable synthesizer(E-12 at 1s adev). The only really good information that I have found is febo.com´s measurements on the PTS synthesizers(http://www.febo.** com/pages/pts_synth/ http://www.febo.com/pages/pts_synth/). Is there any other really good alternatives to the PTS synthesizers? DDS? HP? Best Regards Anders __**_ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/** mailman/listinfo/time-nutshttps://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.
Re: [time-nuts] Very stable synthesizer, alternative to PTS(Programmed Test Sources) x10 or 040?
Hi Unfortunately, the SG380 has an ADEV spec of 1x10^-11 at 1 second. I believe the original request was for a generator at least 10X better than that. Bob -Original Message- From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On Behalf Of Andy Bardagjy Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 11:02 AM To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Very stable synthesizer, alternative to PTS(Programmed Test Sources) x10 or 040? I've had my eye on the Stanford Research SG 380 for some time - they boast -116dBc/Hz phase noise http://thinksrs.com/products/SG380.htm They use a pretty interesting rational approximation frequency synthesis which they discuss in detail in their operating manual. This allows them to drive down the phase noise. Too bad it's nearly $4000... Andy Bardagjy bardagjy.com On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Ed Palmer ed_pal...@sasktel.net wrote: In 2002, this document: THE CRYSTAL OSCILLATOR CHARACTERIZATION FACILITY AT THE AEROSPACE CORPORATION http://www.pttimeeting.org/**archivemeetings/2002papers/**paper32.pdfhttp:/ /www.pttimeeting.org/archivemeetings/2002papers/paper32.pdf stated: The Programmed Test Sources, Inc. PTS model #250M6NIGSX-51 low-noise frequency synthesizer is used to offset the frequency reference to obtain the desired beat frequency. In our previous system, we used a Fluke 6160B frequency synthesizer, since the Fluke 6160B frequency synthesizer had the lowest noise contribution of all the frequency synthesizers on the market at that time. The reason for having the low-noise frequency synthesizer is the synthesizer noise contributions to the system noise-floor. Unfortunately, Fluke has discontinued manufacturing and maintaining this synthesizer. Therefore, we looked at the new synthesizers on the market and found that the PTS synthesizer was the closest to the Fluke 6160B frequency synthesizer in terms of noise floor. Sounds like a working 6160B would be a nice thing to have. Unfortunately, it's too large for my already overcrowded lab. :-( Ed On 7/8/2013 3:44 AM, Anders Time wrote: I have been looking around for a very stable synthesizer(E-12 at 1s adev). The only really good information that I have found is febo.com´s measurements on the PTS synthesizers(http://www.febo.** com/pages/pts_synth/ http://www.febo.com/pages/pts_synth/). Is there any other really good alternatives to the PTS synthesizers? DDS? HP? Best Regards Anders __**_ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/** mailman/listinfo/time-nutshttps://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tim e-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.
Re: [time-nuts] Very stable synthesizer, alternative to PTS(Programmed Test Sources) x10 or 040?
On 07/08/2013 07:55 AM, Ed Palmer wrote: In 2002, this document: THE CRYSTAL OSCILLATOR CHARACTERIZATION FACILITY AT THE AEROSPACE CORPORATION http://www.pttimeeting.org/archivemeetings/2002papers/paper32.pdf stated: The Programmed Test Sources, Inc. PTS model #250M6NIGSX-51 low-noise frequency synthesizer is used to offset the frequency reference to obtain the desired beat frequency. In our previous system, we used a Fluke 6160B frequency synthesizer, since the Fluke 6160B frequency synthesizer had the lowest noise contribution of all the frequency synthesizers on the market at that time. The reason for having the low-noise frequency synthesizer is the synthesizer noise contributions to the system noise-floor. Unfortunately, Fluke has discontinued manufacturing and maintaining this synthesizer. Therefore, we looked at the new synthesizers on the market and found that the PTS synthesizer was the closest to the Fluke 6160B frequency synthesizer in terms of noise floor. Sounds like a working 6160B would be a nice thing to have. Unfortunately, it's too large for my already overcrowded lab. :-( Ed On 7/8/2013 3:44 AM, Anders Time wrote: I have been looking around for a very stable synthesizer(E-12 at 1s adev). The only really good information that I have found is febo.com´s measurements on the PTS synthesizers(http://www.febo.com/pages/pts_synth/). Is there any other really good alternatives to the PTS synthesizers? DDS? HP? Best Regards Anders ___ 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. I have a 6061A using an external frequency reference (Trimble Thunderbolt). The 6061A is a fairly large and massive beast by today's standards. Using the GPIB interface one could simulate the classic WWVB signal. Maybe I could get my Oregon Scientific stuff to get the time right. What is the difference between the A and B models? -- Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX c...@omen.com www.omen.com Developer of Industrial ZMODEM(Tm) for Embedded Applications Omen Technology Inc The High Reliability Software 10255 NW Old Cornelius Pass Portland OR 97231 503-614-0430 ___ 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.
