On 04/16/2011 10:50 PM, Bruce Griffiths wrote:
Bruce Griffiths wrote:
Oz-in-DFW wrote:
On 4/9/2011 11:29 AM, Greg Broburg wrote:
deletia
I expect that I am missing something obvious here
a little nudge may help.
Regards;
Greg
What you are missing is that the concept only applies to
Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 04/16/2011 10:50 PM, Bruce Griffiths wrote:
Bruce Griffiths wrote:
Oz-in-DFW wrote:
On 4/9/2011 11:29 AM, Greg Broburg wrote:
deletia
I expect that I am missing something obvious here
a little nudge may help.
Regards;
Greg
What you are missing is that the
My question about these regenerative filters is that while I know F1 +
F2 = Fin I'm still wondering how stable it is and how you know your
divider will not do something like
10.0001 + 15. = 26.000 for a few hours and then drift over to
9. + 16.0001 = 26.000.In other words I can see
As long as the divisor isnt too large such behaviour doesnt happen.
When the divisor is too large and the filters detune too far then stable
operation may not be possible.
Until recently the reason for the demonstrated stability of regenerative
dividers has been poorly understood.
Non linear
On 04/17/2011 09:13 PM, Bruce Griffiths wrote:
As long as the divisor isnt too large such behaviour doesnt happen.
When the divisor is too large and the filters detune too far then stable
operation may not be possible.
Until recently the reason for the demonstrated stability of regenerative
I prophet:
Chris Albertson schrieb:
I asked the question because I might want to build one of there but I
could not see how they could be table with just an RC filter. So the
answer is they just are.
Mixing generates two frequencies and a DC phase shift response.
If RC filtered you get the
On 04/18/2011 01:06 AM, Chris Albertson wrote:
I asked the question because I might want to build one of there but I
could not see how they coud be stable with just an RC filter. So the
answer is they just are.
OK, so they are stable but why would it run at 10+16=26 and not 10.01+15.99=29
As
On 4/9/2011 11:29 AM, Greg Broburg wrote:
deletia
I expect that I am missing something obvious here
a little nudge may help.
Regards;
Greg
What you are missing is that the concept only applies to small integer
(2 or 3) division ratios and won't work as speculated here. It's sort
of
Oz-in-DFW wrote:
On 4/9/2011 11:29 AM, Greg Broburg wrote:
deletia
I expect that I am missing something obvious here
a little nudge may help.
Regards;
Greg
What you are missing is that the concept only applies to small integer
(2 or 3) division ratios and won't work as
Bruce Griffiths wrote:
Oz-in-DFW wrote:
On 4/9/2011 11:29 AM, Greg Broburg wrote:
deletia
I expect that I am missing something obvious here
a little nudge may help.
Regards;
Greg
What you are missing is that the concept only applies to small integer
(2 or 3) division ratios and won't
On 04/09/2011 11:57 PM, Chuck Harris wrote:
Hi Brooke,
My recollection of first seeing the 4K7 style of marking was
around about the time computers started being used for inventory
control... 1970's. It was only the European companies that
were doing it. It eliminated the confusion caused by
Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 04/09/2011 11:57 PM, Chuck Harris wrote:
Hi Brooke,
My recollection of first seeing the 4K7 style of marking was
around about the time computers started being used for inventory
control... 1970's. It was only the European companies that
were doing it. It eliminated
Bruce Griffiths wrote:
Hal Murray wrote:
bruce.griffi...@xtra.co.nz said:
The 16MHz is necessary for the loop to function: The mixer mixes
down the
26MHz to a pair of conjugate frequencies, 10MHz and 16MHz. Thermal and
device noise is sufficient to start the process.
10MHz = 26MHz - 16MHz
Bruce Griffiths wrote:
Bruce Griffiths wrote:
Hal Murray wrote:
bruce.griffi...@xtra.co.nz said:
The 16MHz is necessary for the loop to function: The mixer mixes
down the
26MHz to a pair of conjugate frequencies, 10MHz and 16MHz. Thermal
and
device noise is sufficient to start the process.
In looking at the CRD idea, it is not obvious to me how either
of the 16M0 Hz or the 10M0 Hz signal would contain any
relevant energy that would give the precision necessary for
the desired ideal result.
The only harmonic relationship that I can see is to square up
the clean analog and divide by
The output of the oscillator is square
Greg
On 4/9/2011 10:29 AM, Greg Broburg wrote:
In looking at the CRD idea, it is not obvious to me how either
of the 16M0 Hz or the 10M0 Hz signal would contain any
relevant energy that would give the precision necessary for
the desired ideal result.
Ok, I'm going nuts. Why are you guys using such a
perverse way of indicating frequency?
I was of the understanding that SI specified you display
1.0MHz as 1.0MHz, or 1,0MHz. But not 1M0 Hz.
What's the story?
-Chuck Harris
Greg Broburg wrote:
In looking at the CRD idea, it is not obvious to
Hi Chuck:
I think it comes from the way schematics are labeled.
If you use 1.8 k Ohms the point may not be seen since . is easy to miss.
But if you use 1k8 there's no question about the meaning.
Have Fun,
Brooke Clarke
http://www.PRC68.com
Chuck Harris wrote:
Ok, I'm going nuts. Why are
At 02:51 PM 4/9/2011, Chuck Harris wrote...
Ok, I'm going nuts. Why are you guys using such a
perverse way of indicating frequency?
I was of the understanding that SI specified you display
1.0MHz as 1.0MHz, or 1,0MHz. But not 1M0 Hz.
What's the story?
I suspect it's following the (most
There is no subharmonic energy in the input signal to a standard
regenerative divide by 2 yet, correctly adjusted, a regenerative divide
by 2 circuit output has very low phase noise over and above that of the
input signal.
The loop starts when the input signal exceeds the threshold required for
Hi Brooke,
My recollection of first seeing the 4K7 style of marking was
around about the time computers started being used for inventory
control... 1970's. It was only the European companies that
were doing it. It eliminated the confusion caused by the US/Eu
. and , decimal points. It also is
At 05:03 PM 4/9/2011, Tom Van Baak wrote...
A note on notation.
That ISO convention...
In what ISO spec/standard/??? is that convention given?
I suspect it is strictly informal, as the convention violates the SI
rules: A multiple or sub-multiple prefix, if used, is part of the unit
and
bruce.griffi...@xtra.co.nz said:
The 16MHz is necessary for the loop to function: The mixer mixes down the
26MHz to a pair of conjugate frequencies, 10MHz and 16MHz. Thermal and
device noise is sufficient to start the process.
10MHz = 26MHz - 16MHz
16MHz = 26MHz - 10MHz
What makes it
10.05 = 26 - 15.95
15.95 = 26 - 10.05
This pair of equations is insufficient to define
that the ratio between these two frequencies
is exactly 1.6 : 1 or 1 : 1.6
There must be an additional concept here.
Greg
On 4/9/2011 6:59 PM, Hal Murray wrote:
bruce.griffi...@xtra.co.nz
Hal Murray wrote:
bruce.griffi...@xtra.co.nz said:
The 16MHz is necessary for the loop to function: The mixer mixes down the
26MHz to a pair of conjugate frequencies, 10MHz and 16MHz. Thermal and
device noise is sufficient to start the process.
10MHz = 26MHz - 16MHz
16MHz =
There are also loop gain and phase shift requirements to be met for
stable operation (ie with no asynchronous modes).
Bruce
Greg Broburg wrote:
10.05 = 26 - 15.95
15.95 = 26 - 10.05
This pair of equations is insufficient to define
that the ratio between these two frequencies
I can't speak for anybody else on the list, but if there was an
inexpensive converter to get a good stable 10MHz signal from one of the
cheap 26MHz OCXOs, I'd sure be interested in building/buying one.
-Pete
On 04/06/2011 06:23 PM, Greg Broburg wrote:
Hi Pete;
I bought 10 of these from you
A conjugate regenerative divider with 2 parallel (16MHz 10MHz) low Q
bandpass filters should suffice.
Bruce
Peter Loron wrote:
I can't speak for anybody else on the list, but if there was an
inexpensive converter to get a good stable 10MHz signal from one of
the cheap 26MHz OCXOs, I'd sure
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Bruce Griffiths
bruce.griffi...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
A conjugate regenerative divider with 2 parallel (16MHz 10MHz) low Q
bandpass filters should suffice.
Never having used one of those, I'm thinking I'd need two mixers, a
10MHz bandpass filter and a 16 MHz
I wonder if conjugate regenerative divider qualifies as an
inexpensive converter
As we used to say in racing, Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go?
CRDs are not particularly expensive, especially when you consider the
performance and what it would take to achieve that performance
Size and power look good so far.
Starting point for me is to run the little oscillators for a week and
see how they muster up.
If that looks good then maybe a few parts from DigiKey to build the filters
Greg
On 4/7/2011 1:55 PM, Charles P. Steinmetz wrote:
I wonder if conjugate
On 4/7/2011 4:05 PM, Greg Broburg wrote:
Size and power look good so far.
Starting point for me is to run the little oscillators for a week and
see how they muster up.
Take a look at Beale's earlier post (be...@bealecorner.com) He's done
most of that for you.
ok, so far so good.
Time for some parts.
I am thinking that Ill do the 10 with a crystal filter
Greg
On 4/7/2011 2:28 PM, Oz-in-DFW wrote:
On 4/7/2011 4:05 PM, Greg Broburg wrote:
Size and power look good so far.
Starting point for me is to run the little oscillators for a week and
see how
Hello, folks. I'm the seller of the 26MHz OCXOs. Please reply off list
if you are interested in some. Thanks.
-Pete
On 04/06/2011 08:58 AM, Oz-in-DFW wrote:
Who is the seller?
On 3/28/2011 1:40 PM, beale wrote:
Just FYI, I'm not sure how this compares to other similar parts, but I'm seeing
Hi Peter-
I just bought 3 of them for 222MHz ham transverter use like Joe has
done.
Can't wait to get them. Thanks for listing them!
-Brian, WA1ZMS
On Apr 6, 2011, at 5:56 PM, Peter Loron pet...@standingwave.org wrote:
Hello, folks. I'm the seller of the 26MHz OCXOs. Please reply off
Hi Pete;
I bought 10 of these from you already. Im working on
a converter that has 26M00 Hz in to 10M00 Hz out.
Not sure if that is of any interest but Im putting it on
the table.
Greg
On 4/6/2011 3:56 PM, Peter Loron wrote:
Hello, folks. I'm the seller of the 26MHz OCXOs. Please reply off
Just FYI, I'm not sure how this compares to other similar parts, but I'm seeing
about +/- 1 ppb (1E-9) frequency drift per 24 hour period from one sample of
the Pletronics OHM40480526, which I've had running for about 10 days now. It
runs on +5V and after a warmup current of 250 mA for a few
37 matches
Mail list logo
