Re: [time-nuts] DAC performance

On 7/17/2017 1:41 PM, Attila Kinali wrote: On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 12:07:29 -0700 "Richard (Rick) Karlquist" wrote: On 7/17/2017 10:54 AM, Azelio Boriani wrote: This implies that in a Rb or Cs there is not a voltage reference source? Yes, that's right, there is no

Re: [time-nuts] DAC performance

Attila wrote: Charles Steinmetz wrote: how about the LTC1650? * * * [it] is nearly 100x (40dB) quieter (30nV/sqrtHz vs. 280) [than the 1650] I was about to ask the same question :-) Note: I divided 280 by 30 and got "nearly 100x". D'Oh! Of

Re: [time-nuts] DAC performance [WAS: Papers on timing for lunar laser ranging]

On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 14:24:24 -0400 Charles Steinmetz wrote: > Well, to name just the first one that comes to mind, how about the > LTC1650? Like the 1655, it is available in SO and DIP packages. Its > differential nonlinearity is >2x better than the 1655, it settles

Re: [time-nuts] DAC performance

On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 12:07:29 -0700 "Richard (Rick) Karlquist" wrote: > On 7/17/2017 10:54 AM, Azelio Boriani wrote: > > This implies that in a Rb or Cs there is not a voltage reference source? > > > > Yes, that's right, there is no voltage reference with a material >

Re: [time-nuts] DAC performance [WAS: Papers on timing for lunar laser ranging]

On 7/17/2017 10:54 AM, Azelio Boriani wrote: This implies that in a Rb or Cs there is not a voltage reference source? Yes, that's right, there is no voltage reference with a material effect on stability or accuracy. Rick N6RK ___ time-nuts

Re: [time-nuts] DAC performance [WAS: Papers on timing for lunar laser ranging]

This implies that in a Rb or Cs there is not a voltage reference source? On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 3:49 AM, Bob kb8tq wrote: > HI > > This is a limitation on an OCXO based GPSDO. That’s really the bottom line > here. > It’s a limitation in an OCXO based part, but not in one based

Re: [time-nuts] DAC performance [WAS: Papers on timing for lunar laser ranging]

HI This is a limitation on an OCXO based GPSDO. That’s really the bottom line here. It’s a limitation in an OCXO based part, but not in one based on an Rb or a Cs. If the added component costs far more than a Cs, it’s not an answer. Bob > On Jul 16, 2017, at 7:25 PM, Chris Albertson

Re: [time-nuts] DAC performance [WAS: Papers on timing for lunar laser ranging]

What about josephson standards? After all, this is "Time Nuts" and we are allowed to propose silly-complex solutions to simple problems if it improves performance even a little. But seriously I thought the issue of making a perfect voltage standard was solved because the Volt is defined to be

Re: [time-nuts] DAC performance [WAS: Papers on timing for lunar laser ranging]

Hi > On Jul 16, 2017, at 6:33 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist > wrote: > > > > On 7/16/2017 1:51 PM, Bob kb8tq wrote: >> Hi >> One gotcha with any ADC or DAC is going to be the reference. There, you are >> in the same >> “get what you pay for” dilemma. Stable and noisy,

Re: [time-nuts] DAC performance [WAS: Papers on timing for lunar laser ranging]

On 7/16/2017 1:51 PM, Bob kb8tq wrote: Hi One gotcha with any ADC or DAC is going to be the reference. There, you are in the same “get what you pay for” dilemma. Stable and noisy, can do. Quiet and not very stable, can do. Both stable and quiet, not so easy if you want it cheap. Noise can

Re: [time-nuts] DAC performance [WAS: Papers on timing for lunar laser ranging]

Hi One gotcha with any ADC or DAC is going to be the reference. There, you are in the same “get what you pay for” dilemma. Stable and noisy, can do. Quiet and not very stable, can do. Both stable and quiet, not so easy if you want it cheap. Noise can also be the sigma delta ADC’s weak

Re: [time-nuts] DAC performance [WAS: Papers on timing for lunar laser ranging]

Bert wrote: We limited to affordable and solderable. The LTC1655 was the clear winner because of linearity and temperature * * * Five years later I know no better alternative Well, to name just the first one that comes to mind, how about the LTC1650? Like the 1655, it is