In message 50e4c479.5080...@earthlink.net, Jim Lux writes:
On 1/2/13 11:37 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Actually, the OS is not important, floating point support is.
floating point support in the sense that the compiler supports it and
generates appropriate code to use software FP or
In message cahjg12qxpb9px8dp6ngk-x575etnsfc+csqr6acsrx7gfw-...@mail.gmail.com
, Tom Harris writes:
+1 for Forth!
Indeed, but for me that is only an indulgence :-)
+1 for your opinions on PICs AVRs. We can buy low end NXP ARM Cortex M0
chips (e.g. LPC1113) for less than the PIC18 we
I would not use the 4046 these days. It has a dead band around zero phase
error.
I would use the 9046 which has no dead band. In addition the integrator supply
is a cleaner design. It is a current source.
The data sheet explains it.
http://www.nxp.com/documents/data_sheet/74HCT9046A.pdf
On 1/3/13 12:53 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In general, you should reuse as much code as you can, life is too short
to write another UDP checksum subroutine.
You captured it exactly..
The thrill of implementing sin() is long past.
Heck, I'd be happy with something that ran
Please don't do that - start a complete new thread instead by posting a
completely new message (i.e. not a reply).
The threading on many engines doesn't use the subject line at all.
Regards,
David Partridge
-Original Message-
From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com
One way is to divide by 10 and then multiply by 16.
Divide by 10 and then follow by 4 tuned frequency doublers.
This should introduce little phase noise.
Another way to do it is to divide by 10, then pass the output thru a
narrow 16 MHz filter and amplify. Sounds difficult but the filter
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 22:45:40 +0100
Fabio Eboli fabi...@quipo.it wrote:
Il 2012-12-23 07:42 Bruce Griffiths ha scritto:
The classic TAC using current mode switching is similar to the
attached circuit schematic.
http://pastebin.com/EkgqmgfE
I have a couple of small questions about this
Here is an update of measurements of some Quartz short term stabilities.
It's interesting to see that the 10811-60111 that some turn their noses
up
at can turn in excellent stability as well!
QUARTZ 1 SEC. 10 SEC. 100 SEC. 1K SEC.
On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 21:28:17 +0100
Attila Kinali att...@kinali.ch wrote:
What is the reason behind the emitter followers Q1 and Q9?
Respecitvely, why shouldnt R3/R4, R7/R8 be connected directly to V+/V-?
Scratch that question. Looking at the schematics again, it became obvious.
Hi
I wonder who made the Motorola DOCXO?
Bob
On Jan 3, 2013, at 3:41 PM, cdel...@juno.com wrote:
Here is an update of measurements of some Quartz short term stabilities.
It's interesting to see that the 10811-60111 that some turn their noses
up
at can turn in excellent stability as well!
Bob,
On 04/01/13 01:41, Bob Camp wrote:
Hi
I wonder who made the Motorola DOCXO?
Wouln't that be CTS in todays name-space?
Cheers,
Magnus
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
Hi
Motorola went out of the DOCXO business back in the 1960's. Everything past
about 1980 was made by somebody else and a Motorola label was put on it. The
part of the business they spun off to CTS made TCXO's, XO's, and crystals.
Bob
On Jan 3, 2013, at 7:53 PM, Magnus Danielson
Where can one get some of these mythical 74HC90 's and 74AC90 's that
have been mentioned.
None of the usual places have them, ie ebay, digi-key, farnell, or
even the Chinese.
Also data-sheets are not to be found.
Thanks
On 4/01/2013 5:13 AM, Bill Fuqua wrote:
One way is to divide by
Am 04.01.2013 01:59, schrieb Max:
Where can one get some of these mythical 74HC90 's and 74AC90 's that
have been mentioned.
None of the usual places have them, ie ebay, digi-key, farnell, or
even the Chinese.
Also data-sheets are not to be found.
you can't find 'em because they're not
They do not exist as I found out (again) not long ago. The last 7490
made was LS (low power schottky) and I use quite a few of them.
Actually, I have seen a datasheet for a 74HC90 and 74HCT90 but they
apparently either never went into production or very few were
produced.
The closest non-TTL
Isn't there a fast divide by N counter that you could set to 10? Maybe even
in ECL?
- Original Message -
From: David davidwh...@gmail.com
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
time-nuts@febo.com
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 8:49 PM
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] 10
Ahhh, the beauty of the 74xx90 is that you can have a symetrical output
by using the divide by two after the divide by five.
Max
On 4/01/2013 1:02 PM, Tom Miller wrote:
Isn't there a fast divide by N counter that you could set to 10? Maybe
even in ECL?
- Original Message - From:
Oh, there are lots, well, at least some presetable synchronous
counters in fast logic families that could be used but that would
require extra glue logic. Alternatively if you just want to divide by
5 or some other small fixed number, you can use a couple of flip-flips
and gates.
On Thu, 03 Jan
At 12:58 AM 1/4/2013 +, time-nuts-requ...@febo.com wrote:
Where can one get some of these mythical 74HC90 's and 74AC90 's that
have been mentioned.
None of the usual places have them, ie ebay, digi-key, farnell, or
even the Chinese.
Also data-sheets are not to be found.
Thanks
This
On 1/3/2013 6:22 PM, David wrote:
Alternatively if you just want to divide by
5 or some other small fixed number, you can use a couple of flip-flips
and gates.
Flip-flips are good for digitally implementing tick-tick clocks, right?
:-) (Use flop-flops for tock-tock.)
tmil...@skylinenet.net said:
Isn't there a fast divide by N counter that you could set to 10? Maybe even
in ECL?
The 74xx16y are 4 bit loadable counters. 2 are binary, 2 are decimal.
I think 1 of each pair has a synchronous reset/clear, the other is async.
Mouser has the 74AC161 and 74AC163
21 matches
Mail list logo
