Folks, thanks for your input and sanity checking. To recap...
Having never worked with crystals before (only 2 and 10 GHz stuff in
GaAs power amp RFIC design for cell phone and the like using lab RF
generators or Vitesse / AMCC asics with clock recovery already done by
someone/something e
Hey Chris,
Thanks for the response... notes below
On Apr 23, 2009, at 12:19 AM, Chris Caudle wrote:
I'm a little late following up on this, but hopefully not too out of
context.
On Wed, April 8, 2009 10:23 pm, Chris Mack wrote:
The box / design of interest has ADCs, DACs, and a 38.
.D. Bakker wrote:
At 22:03 -0400 08-04-2009, Chris Mack / N1SKY wrote:
On Apr 8, 2009, at 8:50 PM, Bruce Griffiths wrote:
Chris
If you divide the output down to ~38MHz using a noiseless divider
then
the performance is 20dB or more worse than can be achieved with a
good
~38MHz crystal oscilla
Firefox Tools->Clear Personal Data... You can even set it up to
ask you to clear personal data when you close the browser and when you
start
Firefox also has add-ins like "ghost" and UserAgent to allow you to
watch as you are being tracked by Google (through JavaScript)... Even
A
I am on the road right now, so I am not in front of it, but I have
the HandyScope HS3 100MHz USB which can run a strip chart recorder
for days / years if you like; depending on hard drive space. The
strip chart may be only available at lower speeds? I dunno... I
can't remember but the
On Apr 8, 2009, at 11:59 PM, Tom Van Baak wrote:
>> The incoming clock source (master house clock) to this box / design
>> of interest is in another rack mount box external to this design on
>> the other side of the room and is anywhere from 44.1kHz up to a 10MHz
>> Rubidium (see also http://www.
nificantly reduce the phase noise of the 38.88MHz source at the
> expense of long term drift and aging.
> Achieving low jitter with such a source isn't difficult.
>
> The other question that arises is why is the OCXO phase noise so
> poor at
> frequency offsets less than 12kH
On Apr 8, 2009, at 8:50 PM, Bruce Griffiths wrote:
>>
> Chris
>
> If you divide the output down to ~38MHz using a noiseless divider then
> the performance is 20dB or more worse than can be achieved with a good
> ~38MHz crystal oscillator.
>
Ah, this would work, but there is a synchronization aspe
On Apr 8, 2009, at 8:02 PM, Bruce Griffiths wrote:
> Unless you are prepared to place the crystals in an oven with the
> temperature regulated tightly and carefully tune the filter
> periodically
> then using a crystal filter (or any passive filter with a sufficiently
> narrow bandwidth to cle
>> This is a good idea for testing..
>
> Applying jitter frequencies for jitter tolerance testing is standard
> stuff and needs to be done. Jitter tolerance curves match up with MTIE
> tolerance curves very neatly.
>
Of course, here is the weird part... It's not SONET; but it is a chip
that can
clock to feed a microprocessor (different from
what I need it to do of course since I already have an OCXO)
Harrumph
Cheers,
-chris
On Apr 8, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
> Chris Mack / N1SKY skrev:
>> Hello fellow time nuts,
>>
>> Have a proje
ed. Also the jitter reference comes into play here
as well
For the sampling application this is being used for, it would be
ideal (by design) to keep the timing uncertainty below 0.45ps or so...
Any thoughts?
Cheers,
-chris
N1SKY
--
Chris Mack
Electrical Engineer / RF Engineer /
12 matches
Mail list logo
