OK, that explains your comment. This is most likely a silicone based potting
compound. It's a bit softer than an eraser when cold. Very little of it was
actually stuck to the board or components. If it had been a hard, epoxy-based
covering, I wouldn't have bothered with it.
Bob
John wrote:
All other things being equal, it's desirable to minimize the time
spent in that region of the waveform. It doesn't necessarily hurt
to choose a faster logic family, as long as the process noise and
device gain are otherwise compatible with the decision. Random
jitter on the 7.5
I thought the context did a pretty good job of explaining it,
but if it did not, I am sorry.
Epoxy potting compound is a lot easier to remove than the silicone
RTV based varieties... Although the silicone variety starts out
soft, it is not crumbly. The epoxy sort loses its cohesiveness
with its
Hi Magnus...
Being one of John's over-engineering friends, I can safely tell you that his
comment is made with tongue firmly in cheek. But we do have fun doing things
that way! And of course the performance of our designs seldom matters; we're
just having fun.
Tom Holmes, N8ZM
-Original
Chuck,
Very sorry, assumed you meant for operation. This makes perfect sense
for deconstruction purposes. My bad.
Al. k9si
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:18:14 -0400
From: Chuck Harris cfhar...@erols.com
No, I meant exactly what I said.
When you are removing epoxy potting compound, put it
And as Tom pointed out, to be confident that your e-10 oscillator has
not drifted beyond e-10, you will need some means of periodically
comparing it to a better standard (which could be GPS or WWV, or a
better local standard such as a cesium or hydrogen maser
source). This will require
Hi all,
Thanks for the interesting feedback everyone, and thanks Attila, for your
specific references - some reading ahead.
In principle, I should be able to remember all the stochastic / standard
control theory, but I'm sure I'll have to 're-remember' it.
An interesting point re 3 use-cases
Rick,
On 04/13/2015 11:03 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:
On 4/13/2015 12:14 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
Oh yes. Some people say that you should not overcomplex things. My
experience is that oversimplifying them can cause a long stretch of
complex problems and complex workarounds making
csteinm...@yandex.com said:
There are two regimes a GPSDO must deal with -- normal operation, and
holdover.
Is there a 3rd regime: Recovery from holdover?
How many GPSDOs even spec what they do in that area? They may do it
indirectly by reference to Telco spec . What do the
Hi folks - Just one note about ECL. It was intentionally designed for slow
rise-time. That was a feature that improved signal integrity in the 70's when
board designers had no clue. I am mostly referring to MECL 10K. MECL III had
faster rise-times.
John K1AE, ECL designer at DEC in the
Hi
To add a bit to the “mind numbing details” list:
The main market for GPSDO’s has traditionally been cell sites. Essential all of
the GPSDO’s
that one sees on eBay these days originally went into one or another aspect of
a cell site or
radio system. The need there is for a rated level of
I think a GPSDO is different from GPS disciplining. In a GPSDO you
are disciplining a local oscillator, not a GPS system.
Algorithms used to discipline oscillators are also used and were
developed for other uses. For example it is common to use a PID to
discipline a local oscillator. The PID
12 matches
Mail list logo
