Re: [time-nuts] OT: Eagle PC CAD now Autodesk, $500/year

[Chris Albertson]

Right on their main page is a FREE download link.  Eagle has always
had a free version and a paid version.   The free version is limited
to 2 schematic sheets, 2 signal layers, and 80 cm2 board area.  I
think this might be very slightly better then in the past.

The good news for users is that now there is a billion dollar company
behind Eagle.   If they run Eagle anything like they do Fusion 360, be
prepared for a continuous flood of updates and new features.

One of the new features they are talking about is integration from
Fusion so you can make the entire product in one CAD system,  At the
holy level this might be a PCB with a custom 3D printed housing so the
buttons on the PCB match up with holes on the housing.  Fusion is
parametric so when an outline changes on a part on a PCB the housing
hole can move if its location was defined as "centered over that
part".

Eagle has seen very slow progress in the past, I expect the feature
set and ease of use and training materials to take off now that a big
company is tossing lots of money at it.



On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:52 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist
 wrote:
> Off topic, but probably a lot of disgrunted Eagle users on this list.
> Its official, you will now have to pay $500 per year for a
> professional license from Autodesk.  The spin meistering of the
> announcement would make George Orwell proud.  I don't see any way they
> can keep me from just using the license I currently own, at least
> on the OS's it supports.  (Parenthetically, like many users, I
> am also digging in my heels in terms of staying at Windows 7).
>
> Still, the question arises:  are there any affordable alternatives?
> Don't have to be entirely free.  I am looking for any trends out
> there as to what tool will attract a critical mass of users in
> the future.  There is strength in numbers.
>
> Comments?
>
> Rick N6RK
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to
> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.



-- 

Chris Albertson
Redondo Beach, California
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] OT: Eagle PC CAD now Autodesk, $500/year

[Chris Albertson]

Typo:  At the HOBBY level.

Professionally they make things like cell phones and set top boxes and
AV Receivers where now days the case the PCB need to be integrated and
have an ability to 3D print a prototype then send the same CAD file to
production.  That is their goal.There is talk over on the
Fusion360 blog about long term goals

Another one for Eagle is collaboration.  That is where a group of
designers all work on the product, basically from home and when they
are done, al the parts fit

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:28 PM, Chris Albertson
 wrote:
> Right on their main page is a FREE download link.  Eagle has always
> had a free version and a paid version.   The free version is limited
> to 2 schematic sheets, 2 signal layers, and 80 cm2 board area.  I
> think this might be very slightly better then in the past.
>
> The good news for users is that now there is a billion dollar company
> behind Eagle.   If they run Eagle anything like they do Fusion 360, be
> prepared for a continuous flood of updates and new features.
>
> One of the new features they are talking about is integration from
> Fusion so you can make the entire product in one CAD system,  At the
> holy level this might be a PCB with a custom 3D printed housing so the
> buttons on the PCB match up with holes on the housing.  Fusion is
> parametric so when an outline changes on a part on a PCB the housing
> hole can move if its location was defined as "centered over that
> part".
>
> Eagle has seen very slow progress in the past, I expect the feature
> set and ease of use and training materials to take off now that a big
> company is tossing lots of money at it.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:52 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist
>  wrote:
>> Off topic, but probably a lot of disgrunted Eagle users on this list.
>> Its official, you will now have to pay $500 per year for a
>> professional license from Autodesk.  The spin meistering of the
>> announcement would make George Orwell proud.  I don't see any way they
>> can keep me from just using the license I currently own, at least
>> on the OS's it supports.  (Parenthetically, like many users, I
>> am also digging in my heels in terms of staying at Windows 7).
>>
>> Still, the question arises:  are there any affordable alternatives?
>> Don't have to be entirely free.  I am looking for any trends out
>> there as to what tool will attract a critical mass of users in
>> the future.  There is strength in numbers.
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>> Rick N6RK
>> ___
>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
>> To unsubscribe, go to
>> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>> and follow the instructions there.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Chris Albertson
> Redondo Beach, California



-- 

Chris Albertson
Redondo Beach, California
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] OT: Eagle PC CAD now Autodesk, $500/year

[ziggy9+time-nuts]

Another one to look at is DipTrace. The free version is 300 pins and 2 signal 
layers, non-profit use. 

> On Jan 19, 2017, at 10:52 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist 
>  wrote:
> 
> Off topic, but probably a lot of disgrunted Eagle users on this list.
> Its official, you will now have to pay $500 per year for a
> professional license from Autodesk.  The spin meistering of the
> announcement would make George Orwell proud.  I don't see any way they
> can keep me from just using the license I currently own, at least
> on the OS's it supports.  (Parenthetically, like many users, I
> am also digging in my heels in terms of staying at Windows 7).
> 
> Still, the question arises:  are there any affordable alternatives?
> Don't have to be entirely free.  I am looking for any trends out
> there as to what tool will attract a critical mass of users in
> the future.  There is strength in numbers.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> Rick N6RK
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] OT: Eagle PC CAD now Autodesk, $500/year

[Bob Stewart]

I used KICAD for my GPSDO.  I've never used Eagle, so I don't know what 
differences there are.  I had used ExpressPCB, so it did take some getting used 
to.  Even at my early entry-level stage, a number of components supplied with 
the program were unusable.  This was mainly due to the size of the component on 
a schematic being much too large.  IIRC, a couple of supplied footprints 
weren't acceptable, either; though I can't remember which ones.  And, of 
course, it didn't have the PIC I was using either on the schematic or the 
footprint for the board, as well as a couple of other smaller components.  But, 
I've got a usable library built now, and it's easy enough to add stuff as 
needed.
I've only used it for 2-layer boards so far: some complex, and some trivial.  I 
don't think the microwave trace stuff is in a completed state, yet.  There is 
no auto-routing of the board.  There were some licensing issues with the one 
they were using, and it was disabled and disappeared.  But, you get used to 
picking and placing and adjusting after you've done it for awhile.  It does 
make Gerber files that are accepted by OSHPark; who I use to make my boards.
The schematic section has the ability to use hierarchical layers.  There is a 
3D viewer for the routed board.  I usually use that, as well as using the 
OSHPark pictures for final inspection before ordering.

And, the price is right.

HTH,

Bob
 -
AE6RV.com

GFS GPSDO list:
groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/GFS-GPSDOs/info

  From: Tom Curlee 
 To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement  
 Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 11:32 PM
 Subject: Re: [time-nuts] OT: Eagle PC CAD now Autodesk, $500/year
   
KiCad is an open source pcd cad package that looks interesting.  Has some 
microwave/RF features, 8 layers (I think),  both schematic capture and layout.  
Just started to look at it.  Doesn't have the libraries that Eagle does, but 
you can create your own.  Worth looking at.
Considering how Autodesk works (pay ), I'm surprised that their Fusion 360 
3D cad package is free for hobbyists.  I use Solidworks at work, but definitely 
not going to pay $6K for home use.  Just starting to learn Fusion 360, and, at 
least at my level, it seems to have all the functionality of Solidworks.  My 
only beef is that it's cloud based, but it will work off line for a few weeks 
before needing to call home.  My fear is that some time in the future Autodesk 
will either discontinue the program or start wanting $$.  Again, well worth 
looking at.
Tom, WB6UZZ


      From: Richard (Rick) Karlquist 
 To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement  
 Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 7:52 PM
 Subject: [time-nuts] OT: Eagle PC CAD now Autodesk, $500/year
  
Off topic, but probably a lot of disgrunted Eagle users on this list.
Its official, you will now have to pay $500 per year for a
professional license from Autodesk.  The spin meistering of the
announcement would make George Orwell proud.  I don't see any way they
can keep me from just using the license I currently own, at least
on the OS's it supports.  (Parenthetically, like many users, I
am also digging in my heels in terms of staying at Windows 7).

Still, the question arises:  are there any affordable alternatives?
Don't have to be entirely free.  I am looking for any trends out
there as to what tool will attract a critical mass of users in
the future.  There is strength in numbers.

Comments?

Rick N6RK
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.


  
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.


   
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] OT: Eagle PC CAD now Autodesk, $500/year

[Hal Murray]

> Still, the question arises:  are there any affordable alternatives?

kikad
  http://kicad-pcb.org/

I haven't done any serious work with it.  When I looked 5 or 10 years ago, it 
was good enough to make some very nice big, complicated boards.  (I don't 
know how much effort went into them.)

It had a steep enough learning curve that I didn't get very far off the 
ground but so does everything else in this area.  I didn't see any show 
stoppers.


-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.



___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] OT: Eagle PC CAD now Autodesk, $500/year

[Nick Sayer via time-nuts]

I think the alternative with the greatest momentum at the moment is KiCAD.

I haven’t tried KiCAD yet. The problem I have is that I have a ton of libraries 
and projects I’d have to convert. I suspect that there is automation to perform 
the import (or soon will be), but it’s basically NRE that I’m not looking 
forward to. That doesn’t really change with whatever option I pick, other than 
sticking with EAGLE. I’m not yet 100% convinced Autodesk won’t reverse course 
on this, unless they really *do* want EAGLE to die the death of a thousand cuts.

> On Jan 19, 2017, at 7:52 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist  
> wrote:
> 
> Off topic, but probably a lot of disgrunted Eagle users on this list.
> Its official, you will now have to pay $500 per year for a
> professional license from Autodesk.  The spin meistering of the
> announcement would make George Orwell proud.  I don't see any way they
> can keep me from just using the license I currently own, at least
> on the OS's it supports.  (Parenthetically, like many users, I
> am also digging in my heels in terms of staying at Windows 7).
> 
> Still, the question arises:  are there any affordable alternatives?
> Don't have to be entirely free.  I am looking for any trends out
> there as to what tool will attract a critical mass of users in
> the future.  There is strength in numbers.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> Rick N6RK
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] OT: Eagle PC CAD now Autodesk, $500/year

[Tom Curlee]

KiCad is an open source pcd cad package that looks interesting.  Has some 
microwave/RF features, 8 layers (I think),  both schematic capture and layout.  
Just started to look at it.  Doesn't have the libraries that Eagle does, but 
you can create your own.  Worth looking at.
Considering how Autodesk works (pay ), I'm surprised that their Fusion 360 
3D cad package is free for hobbyists.  I use Solidworks at work, but definitely 
not going to pay $6K for home use.  Just starting to learn Fusion 360, and, at 
least at my level, it seems to have all the functionality of Solidworks.  My 
only beef is that it's cloud based, but it will work off line for a few weeks 
before needing to call home.  My fear is that some time in the future Autodesk 
will either discontinue the program or start wanting $$.  Again, well worth 
looking at.
Tom, WB6UZZ


  From: Richard (Rick) Karlquist 
 To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement  
 Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 7:52 PM
 Subject: [time-nuts] OT: Eagle PC CAD now Autodesk, $500/year
   
Off topic, but probably a lot of disgrunted Eagle users on this list.
Its official, you will now have to pay $500 per year for a
professional license from Autodesk.  The spin meistering of the
announcement would make George Orwell proud.  I don't see any way they
can keep me from just using the license I currently own, at least
on the OS's it supports.  (Parenthetically, like many users, I
am also digging in my heels in terms of staying at Windows 7).

Still, the question arises:  are there any affordable alternatives?
Don't have to be entirely free.  I am looking for any trends out
there as to what tool will attract a critical mass of users in
the future.  There is strength in numbers.

Comments?

Rick N6RK
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.


   
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

[time-nuts] OT: Eagle PC CAD now Autodesk, $500/year

[Richard (Rick) Karlquist]

Off topic, but probably a lot of disgrunted Eagle users on this list.
Its official, you will now have to pay $500 per year for a
professional license from Autodesk.  The spin meistering of the
announcement would make George Orwell proud.  I don't see any way they
can keep me from just using the license I currently own, at least
on the OS's it supports.  (Parenthetically, like many users, I
am also digging in my heels in terms of staying at Windows 7).

Still, the question arises:  are there any affordable alternatives?
Don't have to be entirely free.  I am looking for any trends out
there as to what tool will attract a critical mass of users in
the future.  There is strength in numbers.

Comments?

Rick N6RK
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 10MHz to 25MHz

[David]

On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 10:48:57 -0800, you wrote:

>On 1/19/2017 5:40 AM, David wrote:
>
>> oscillator.  In some applications I would also be concerned about the
>> phase of a narrow bandpass filter changing with temperature.
>
>The 5061 has tuned bandpass filter multipliers which have exactly this 
>problem.  A temperature ramp causes a phase ramp which is the same as a
>frequency offset.
>
>Rick N6RK

That is what I remembered from a discussion here about 10 MHz
distribution amplifiers
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 10MHz to 25MHz

[Bob Camp]

Hi

> On Jan 19, 2017, at 2:42 PM, Bryan _  wrote:
> 
> Wouldn't designing circuitry and PCB's be easier with 10Mhz vs 100Mhz? Maybe 
> not so much now but then.

Design in general might be a bit easier at the lower frequency “way back when”. 
I’ve never run into 
it as an issue or consideration since the mid 1960’s though. 

Bob

> 
> 
> -=Bryan=-
> 
> 
> 
> From: time-nuts  on behalf of Charles Steinmetz 
> 
> Sent: January 19, 2017 4:13 AM
> To: time-nuts@febo.com
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] 10MHz to 25MHz
> 
> Chris wrote:
> 
>> I have always wondered why we build our "standard" with such a low
>> frequency.   Why not a 100MHz GPSDO?   Why 10MHz
> 
> Quartz crystals work better at lower frequencies, predominantly because
> they have higher Q.  10MHz was chosen because it is low enough for
> excellent performance but high enough to be directly useful (since an
> accident of biology gave us ten fingers, we've created a base-10 world
> and powers of 10 are favored in almost everything).
> 
> In prior times, 5MHz crystals held this position, and before that, 1MHz.
>  There is a good argument even today that the best 2.5MHz or 5MHz
> crystals are better than the best 10MHz crystals, but not by enough to
> make 2.5MHz or 5MHz standards popular any longer.
> 
> One lonely data point, which proves nothing:  My best crystal oscillator
> is a Symmetricom clone of the double-oven HP 10811s (it came out of an
> HP GPSDO, so apparently HP at one time used them interchangeably with
> the 10811).  That OCXO uses a 5MHz crystal and a frequency doubler to
> produce its 10MHz output.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Charles
> 
> 
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> 
> time-nuts Info Page - American Febo 
> Enterprises
> www.febo.com
> time-nuts is a low volume, high SNR list for the discussion of precise time 
> and frequency measurement and related topics. To see the collection of prior 
> postings to ...
> 
> 
> 
> and follow the instructions there.
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 10MHz to 25MHz

[Scott Stobbe]

Is there any reason why you wouldn't be able to run the same drive level on
say the fifth overtone versus the fundamental? I would guess at 100 MHz it
may be 3rd or 5th, or are they fundamental?

The comments one drivelevel are simply based on snr, larger signal with
same noise, better snr

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:06 PM Bob Camp  wrote:

> Hi
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 19, 2017, at 3:03 PM, Scott Stobbe 
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Wouldn't crystal drive level be one of the important specifications for
> far
>
> > out phase noise?
>
>
>
> It would, but you can get the same floor at 10 MHz as you can get at 100
> MHz.
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> >
>
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Bob Camp  wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> HI
>
> >>
>
> >> A lot of your evaluation of the term “better” will depend on your
> intended
>
> >> use. One of the limits on phase noise
>
> >> is the thermal noise floor. Because of that, starting at a higher
>
> >> frequency will always give you an edge on broadband
>
> >> phase noise. ADEV / short term stability is linked to the Q of your
>
> >> resonator. In a quartz crystal, maximum Q is
>
> >> roughly proportional to frequency. The other limit on Q is blank
> geometry
>
> >> (size). One other limit is practicality -
>
> >> is a $250,000 OCXO that is 1 cubic meter in size appropriate for your
>
> >> application? The answer to that one is
>
> >> universally - NO :) Somewhere along the line of larger size and cost,
>
> >> other technologies make more sense.
>
> >>
>
> >> So, if better = phase noise floor, 100 MHz is better than 10 MHz. If
>
> >> better = ADEV, 5 MHz in a large package is
>
> >> likely better than 100 MHz. Indeed these are only two variables. There
> are
>
> >> *many* others you could look at.
>
> >>
>
> >> Lots of fun
>
> >>
>
> >> Bob
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Jan 19, 2017, at 7:13 AM, Charles Steinmetz 
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Chris wrote:
>
> >>>
>
>  I have always wondered why we build our "standard" with such a low
>
>  frequency.   Why not a 100MHz GPSDO?   Why 10MHz
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Quartz crystals work better at lower frequencies, predominantly because
>
> >> they have higher Q.  10MHz was chosen because it is low enough for
>
> >> excellent performance but high enough to be directly useful (since an
>
> >> accident of biology gave us ten fingers, we've created a base-10 world
> and
>
> >> powers of 10 are favored in almost everything).
>
> >>>
>
> >>> In prior times, 5MHz crystals held this position, and before that,
>
> >> 1MHz.  There is a good argument even today that the best 2.5MHz or 5MHz
>
> >> crystals are better than the best 10MHz crystals, but not by enough to
> make
>
> >> 2.5MHz or 5MHz standards popular any longer.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> One lonely data point, which proves nothing:  My best crystal
> oscillator
>
> >> is a Symmetricom clone of the double-oven HP 10811s (it came out of an
> HP
>
> >> GPSDO, so apparently HP at one time used them interchangeably with the
>
> >> 10811).  That OCXO uses a 5MHz crystal and a frequency doubler to
> produce
>
> >> its 10MHz output.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Best Regards,
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Charles
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >> ___
>
> >> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
>
> >> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/
>
> >> mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>
> >> and follow the instructions there.
>
> >>
>
> > ___
>
> > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
>
> > To unsubscribe, go to
> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>
> > and follow the instructions there.
>
>
>
> ___
>
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
>
> To unsubscribe, go to
> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>
> and follow the instructions there.
>
>
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] How to test a super Rb standard

[ws at Yahoo via time-nuts]

on Wed, Jan 18, 2017 Chris wrote:
 
>But BEFORE you try and improve the Rb performance you need to have some way
>to MEASURE its performance.  This is likely much harder.
 
 
Testing most RB's mid & long term performance can be done "on the cheap" by
using a Tbolt that's been set up to accept it as an external Oscillator.
With discipline turned off, it uses the GPS directly as the Freq ref to plot
& record the Rb's Phase error over time. 
Can then use TimeLab to do the ADEV etc. plotting from the large saved
LadyHeather's  xx.Log data file.
 
The limit using GPS as the Reference to test a "super RB" is the GPS's
accuracy which I hear is around +- 10ns & ~1e-13 per day when using a good
antenna setup.
 
Attached is a LH and TimeLab plot of a super LPRO RB with ADEV of <1e-13 at
1 day and a pretty consistent freq offset of ~7e-14 over 4 days. 
(This LPRO showed an ageing rate of 2e-15/day over a selected 12 days) 
 
Ws

 

 

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Detector Matching

[Bob Camp]

Hi

Not sure this is on topic for the group, but here’s the simple answer:

Your diode detector does not present a constant load as the power goes from 
-50 dbm to 0 dbm. If you have a matching circuit, it can only work at one power 
level. 
In addition, you have frequency effects. 

The simple answer is not to match the detector over the whole power range. You 
provide
an adequate match to the rest of the system by other means (possibly an 
isolator, maybe something 
else).

Bob

> On Jan 19, 2017, at 4:00 PM, Mohammad-Hadi Sohrabi  
> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> I am new to this amazing community. Here is my question; I am designing a
> matching circuit for an RF (envelop) detector, which is simply a diode.
> However, I cannot make the matching stable for various powers at BW=0.5 GHz
> around center frequency of 15 GHz. Matching moves away quickly from 50 ohms
> by changing the power from -50 dBm to 0 dBm.
> Any suggestion or guide would be appreciated.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mohammad
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Thunderbolt Harmonics

[Bill Byrom]

You can't trust such low harmonic spurious measurements from a  spectrum
analyzer unless you know how the spurs change with input level. The
second harmonic spur created in an amplifier or mixer inside the
spectrum analyzer input will typically increase by 2 dB for every 1 dB
of input level increase. Anytime you see a frequency converting RF
component (such as the mixer in the input of a spectrum analyzer), it is
nonlinear and will generate harmonics and intermodulation products. All
you need to do is to keep the input level low enough so that the
distortion products generated in the analyzer are below the signals you
are measuring. The best and easiest technique is to increase the input
attenuation by the smallest step available (such as 5 dB or 10 dB) and
checking how the spurious components change.
** If the harmonic or other spurious signal is coming from an external
source, it should not change as the input attenuation changes.
** If the harmonic or other spurious signal is generated inside the
analyzer, it should change relative to the fundamental signal as the
input attenuation changes.
** I'm talking about the harmonics or other spurious signals relative to
the fundamental frequency being displayed. If you remove the input
signal and still see the spur, it's a residual spur created inside the
analyzer unrelated to the input signal.


If you graph fundamental signal displayed amplitude vs changing input
level, you will typically see the following for spurious signals created
by most mixers or amplifiers:
(1) Fundamental signal = slope of 1

(2) Second harmonic signal = slope of 2

(3) Third order intermodulation (sum or different frequencies caused by
mixing of two signals) = slope of 3


For more background, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-order_intercept_point



If that is a SiglentSSA3000X series analyzer, here are the spurious
specifications from the datasheet:
** Second harmonic distortion: -65 dBc (above 50 MHz input with
preamplifier off)
 

Note that the second harmonic distortion is only specified at 50 MHz
input and above and at a -30 dBm input power level with the preamplifier
off. For comparison, here are the specifications of a Tektronix RSA507A
portable spectrum analyzer. Disclosure: I work for Tektronix.
** Second harmonic distortion: - 75 dBc (above 40 MHz input,
preamplifier OFF)
** Second harmonic distortion: - 60 dBc (above 40 MHz input,
preamplifier ON)


I'm sure that the reason for a lower limit on the second harmonic
specification is that the results are worse at lower frequencies. So
it's quite possible that the harmonics you see are mainly coming from
the spectrum analyzer input mixer or preamplifier. As I suggested
earlier, try lowering the input level by 5 or 10 dB  and see if the
harmonics go down linearly.
--

Bill Byrom N5BB





On Tue, Jan 17, 2017, at 08:40 PM, Rhys D wrote:

> Hi all,

>  

> Before I start, let me say I'm rather a newbie at this sort of
> stuff so
> please be gentle.

>  

> I was looking at the output of my Trimble Thunderbolt GPSDO and
> was rather
> surprised to see really "loud" harmonics in there. ~ 60dB down
> from the
> 10Mhz signal.

>  

> Can anyone here shed some light on what I am seeing here?

> Surely this isn't what it is supposed to look like? Should I be
> trying to
> filter these before going to my distribution amplifier?

>  

> Thanks for any light you can shed.

>  

> R

>  

>  

> 

>  

> _

> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com

> To unsubscribe, go to
> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.


___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 10MHz to 25MHz

[Bob Camp]

> On Jan 19, 2017, at 3:03 PM, Scott Stobbe  wrote:
> 
> Wouldn't crystal drive level be one of the important specifications for far
> out phase noise?
> 
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Bob Camp  wrote:
> 
>> HI
>> 
>> A lot of your evaluation of the term “better” will depend on your intended
>> use. One of the limits on phase noise
>> is the thermal noise floor. Because of that, starting at a higher
>> frequency will always give you an edge on broadband
>> phase noise. ADEV / short term stability is linked to the Q of your
>> resonator. In a quartz crystal, maximum Q is
>> roughly proportional to frequency. The other limit on Q is blank geometry
>> (size). One other limit is practicality -
>> is a $250,000 OCXO that is 1 cubic meter in size appropriate for your
>> application? The answer to that one is
>> universally - NO :) Somewhere along the line of larger size and cost,
>> other technologies make more sense.
>> 
>> So, if better = phase noise floor, 100 MHz is better than 10 MHz. If
>> better = ADEV, 5 MHz in a large package is
>> likely better than 100 MHz. Indeed these are only two variables. There are
>> *many* others you could look at.
>> 
>> Lots of fun
>> 
>> Bob
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 19, 2017, at 7:13 AM, Charles Steinmetz 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Chris wrote:
>>> 
 I have always wondered why we build our "standard" with such a low
 frequency.   Why not a 100MHz GPSDO?   Why 10MHz
>>> 
>>> Quartz crystals work better at lower frequencies, predominantly because
>> they have higher Q.  10MHz was chosen because it is low enough for
>> excellent performance but high enough to be directly useful (since an
>> accident of biology gave us ten fingers, we've created a base-10 world and
>> powers of 10 are favored in almost everything).
>>> 
>>> In prior times, 5MHz crystals held this position, and before that,
>> 1MHz.  There is a good argument even today that the best 2.5MHz or 5MHz
>> crystals are better than the best 10MHz crystals, but not by enough to make
>> 2.5MHz or 5MHz standards popular any longer.
>>> 
>>> One lonely data point, which proves nothing:  My best crystal oscillator
>> is a Symmetricom clone of the double-oven HP 10811s (it came out of an HP
>> GPSDO, so apparently HP at one time used them interchangeably with the
>> 10811).  That OCXO uses a 5MHz crystal and a frequency doubler to produce
>> its 10MHz output.
>>> 
>>> Best Regards,
>>> 
>>> Charles
>>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
>> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/
>> mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>> and follow the instructions there.
>> 
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

[time-nuts] Detector Matching

[Mohammad-Hadi Sohrabi]

Hello,
I am new to this amazing community. Here is my question; I am designing a
matching circuit for an RF (envelop) detector, which is simply a diode.
However, I cannot make the matching stable for various powers at BW=0.5 GHz
around center frequency of 15 GHz. Matching moves away quickly from 50 ohms
by changing the power from -50 dBm to 0 dBm.
Any suggestion or guide would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Mohammad
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 10MHz to 25MHz

[Bob Camp]

Hi


> On Jan 19, 2017, at 3:03 PM, Scott Stobbe  wrote:
> 
> Wouldn't crystal drive level be one of the important specifications for far
> out phase noise?

It would, but you can get the same floor at 10 MHz as you can get at 100 MHz.

Bob

> 
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Bob Camp  wrote:
> 
>> HI
>> 
>> A lot of your evaluation of the term “better” will depend on your intended
>> use. One of the limits on phase noise
>> is the thermal noise floor. Because of that, starting at a higher
>> frequency will always give you an edge on broadband
>> phase noise. ADEV / short term stability is linked to the Q of your
>> resonator. In a quartz crystal, maximum Q is
>> roughly proportional to frequency. The other limit on Q is blank geometry
>> (size). One other limit is practicality -
>> is a $250,000 OCXO that is 1 cubic meter in size appropriate for your
>> application? The answer to that one is
>> universally - NO :) Somewhere along the line of larger size and cost,
>> other technologies make more sense.
>> 
>> So, if better = phase noise floor, 100 MHz is better than 10 MHz. If
>> better = ADEV, 5 MHz in a large package is
>> likely better than 100 MHz. Indeed these are only two variables. There are
>> *many* others you could look at.
>> 
>> Lots of fun
>> 
>> Bob
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 19, 2017, at 7:13 AM, Charles Steinmetz 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Chris wrote:
>>> 
 I have always wondered why we build our "standard" with such a low
 frequency.   Why not a 100MHz GPSDO?   Why 10MHz
>>> 
>>> Quartz crystals work better at lower frequencies, predominantly because
>> they have higher Q.  10MHz was chosen because it is low enough for
>> excellent performance but high enough to be directly useful (since an
>> accident of biology gave us ten fingers, we've created a base-10 world and
>> powers of 10 are favored in almost everything).
>>> 
>>> In prior times, 5MHz crystals held this position, and before that,
>> 1MHz.  There is a good argument even today that the best 2.5MHz or 5MHz
>> crystals are better than the best 10MHz crystals, but not by enough to make
>> 2.5MHz or 5MHz standards popular any longer.
>>> 
>>> One lonely data point, which proves nothing:  My best crystal oscillator
>> is a Symmetricom clone of the double-oven HP 10811s (it came out of an HP
>> GPSDO, so apparently HP at one time used them interchangeably with the
>> 10811).  That OCXO uses a 5MHz crystal and a frequency doubler to produce
>> its 10MHz output.
>>> 
>>> Best Regards,
>>> 
>>> Charles
>>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
>> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/
>> mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>> and follow the instructions there.
>> 
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 10MHz to 25MHz

[Charles Steinmetz]

Bob wrote:


is a $250,000 OCXO that is 1 cubic meter in size appropriate for your 
application?
The answer to that one is universally - NO


Well, it'll be a lot cheaper when it shows up on ebay.  The shipping 
might be a killer, though.


;-)

Best regards,

Charles



___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] PN/AM and 1.5Hz spur from frequency doubling?

[Bill Byrom]

I see spurs at 50 Hz and harmonics, which I assume are from the power
line at your location. This might be due to an oscillation in the power
supply regulator, leading to nonlinear regulator operation and
feedthrough of power line ripple. For example, low dropout regulators
can sometimes oscillate when an additional ceramic bypass capacitor is
added due to decreased phase margin in the feedback loop. It's also
possible that there is too much ripple before the regulator and you are
exceeding the dropout voltage, or that the regulator is going in and out
of an overcurrent condition. Many odd things may happen if the power
supply regular isn't working properly.


--

Bill Byrom N5BB





> _

> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com

> To unsubscribe, go to

> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts

> and follow the instructions there.


___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 10MHz to 25MHz

[Scott Stobbe]

Wouldn't crystal drive level be one of the important specifications for far
out phase noise?

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Bob Camp  wrote:

> HI
>
> A lot of your evaluation of the term “better” will depend on your intended
> use. One of the limits on phase noise
> is the thermal noise floor. Because of that, starting at a higher
> frequency will always give you an edge on broadband
> phase noise. ADEV / short term stability is linked to the Q of your
> resonator. In a quartz crystal, maximum Q is
> roughly proportional to frequency. The other limit on Q is blank geometry
> (size). One other limit is practicality -
> is a $250,000 OCXO that is 1 cubic meter in size appropriate for your
> application? The answer to that one is
> universally - NO :) Somewhere along the line of larger size and cost,
> other technologies make more sense.
>
> So, if better = phase noise floor, 100 MHz is better than 10 MHz. If
> better = ADEV, 5 MHz in a large package is
> likely better than 100 MHz. Indeed these are only two variables. There are
> *many* others you could look at.
>
> Lots of fun
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> > On Jan 19, 2017, at 7:13 AM, Charles Steinmetz 
> wrote:
> >
> > Chris wrote:
> >
> >> I have always wondered why we build our "standard" with such a low
> >> frequency.   Why not a 100MHz GPSDO?   Why 10MHz
> >
> > Quartz crystals work better at lower frequencies, predominantly because
> they have higher Q.  10MHz was chosen because it is low enough for
> excellent performance but high enough to be directly useful (since an
> accident of biology gave us ten fingers, we've created a base-10 world and
> powers of 10 are favored in almost everything).
> >
> > In prior times, 5MHz crystals held this position, and before that,
> 1MHz.  There is a good argument even today that the best 2.5MHz or 5MHz
> crystals are better than the best 10MHz crystals, but not by enough to make
> 2.5MHz or 5MHz standards popular any longer.
> >
> > One lonely data point, which proves nothing:  My best crystal oscillator
> is a Symmetricom clone of the double-oven HP 10811s (it came out of an HP
> GPSDO, so apparently HP at one time used them interchangeably with the
> 10811).  That OCXO uses a 5MHz crystal and a frequency doubler to produce
> its 10MHz output.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Charles
> >
>
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/
> mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 10MHz to 25MHz

[Bryan _]

Wouldn't designing circuitry and PCB's be easier with 10Mhz vs 100Mhz? Maybe 
not so much now but then.


-=Bryan=-



From: time-nuts  on behalf of Charles Steinmetz 

Sent: January 19, 2017 4:13 AM
To: time-nuts@febo.com
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] 10MHz to 25MHz

Chris wrote:

> I have always wondered why we build our "standard" with such a low
> frequency.   Why not a 100MHz GPSDO?   Why 10MHz

Quartz crystals work better at lower frequencies, predominantly because
they have higher Q.  10MHz was chosen because it is low enough for
excellent performance but high enough to be directly useful (since an
accident of biology gave us ten fingers, we've created a base-10 world
and powers of 10 are favored in almost everything).

In prior times, 5MHz crystals held this position, and before that, 1MHz.
  There is a good argument even today that the best 2.5MHz or 5MHz
crystals are better than the best 10MHz crystals, but not by enough to
make 2.5MHz or 5MHz standards popular any longer.

One lonely data point, which proves nothing:  My best crystal oscillator
is a Symmetricom clone of the double-oven HP 10811s (it came out of an
HP GPSDO, so apparently HP at one time used them interchangeably with
the 10811).  That OCXO uses a 5MHz crystal and a frequency doubler to
produce its 10MHz output.

Best Regards,

Charles


___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts

time-nuts Info Page - American Febo 
Enterprises
www.febo.com
time-nuts is a low volume, high SNR list for the discussion of precise time and 
frequency measurement and related topics. To see the collection of prior 
postings to ...



and follow the instructions there.
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 10MHz to 25MHz

[Bob Camp]

HI

A lot of your evaluation of the term “better” will depend on your intended use. 
One of the limits on phase noise
is the thermal noise floor. Because of that, starting at a higher frequency 
will always give you an edge on broadband
phase noise. ADEV / short term stability is linked to the Q of your resonator. 
In a quartz crystal, maximum Q is 
roughly proportional to frequency. The other limit on Q is blank geometry 
(size). One other limit is practicality - 
is a $250,000 OCXO that is 1 cubic meter in size appropriate for your 
application? The answer to that one is 
universally - NO :) Somewhere along the line of larger size and cost, other 
technologies make more sense. 

So, if better = phase noise floor, 100 MHz is better than 10 MHz. If better = 
ADEV, 5 MHz in a large package is 
likely better than 100 MHz. Indeed these are only two variables. There are 
*many* others you could look at. 

Lots of fun 

Bob 



> On Jan 19, 2017, at 7:13 AM, Charles Steinmetz  wrote:
> 
> Chris wrote:
> 
>> I have always wondered why we build our "standard" with such a low
>> frequency.   Why not a 100MHz GPSDO?   Why 10MHz
> 
> Quartz crystals work better at lower frequencies, predominantly because they 
> have higher Q.  10MHz was chosen because it is low enough for excellent 
> performance but high enough to be directly useful (since an accident of 
> biology gave us ten fingers, we've created a base-10 world and powers of 10 
> are favored in almost everything).
> 
> In prior times, 5MHz crystals held this position, and before that, 1MHz.  
> There is a good argument even today that the best 2.5MHz or 5MHz crystals are 
> better than the best 10MHz crystals, but not by enough to make 2.5MHz or 5MHz 
> standards popular any longer.
> 
> One lonely data point, which proves nothing:  My best crystal oscillator is a 
> Symmetricom clone of the double-oven HP 10811s (it came out of an HP GPSDO, 
> so apparently HP at one time used them interchangeably with the 10811).  That 
> OCXO uses a 5MHz crystal and a frequency doubler to produce its 10MHz output.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Charles
> 

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 10MHz to 25MHz

[Richard (Rick) Karlquist]

On 1/19/2017 5:40 AM, David wrote:


oscillator.  In some applications I would also be concerned about the
phase of a narrow bandpass filter changing with temperature.


The 5061 has tuned bandpass filter multipliers which have exactly this 
problem.  A temperature ramp causes a phase ramp which is the same as a

frequency offset.

Rick N6RK
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 10MHz to 25MHz

[Charles Steinmetz]

Chris wrote:


I have always wondered why we build our "standard" with such a low
frequency.   Why not a 100MHz GPSDO?   Why 10MHz


Quartz crystals work better at lower frequencies, predominantly because 
they have higher Q.  10MHz was chosen because it is low enough for 
excellent performance but high enough to be directly useful (since an 
accident of biology gave us ten fingers, we've created a base-10 world 
and powers of 10 are favored in almost everything).


In prior times, 5MHz crystals held this position, and before that, 1MHz. 
 There is a good argument even today that the best 2.5MHz or 5MHz 
crystals are better than the best 10MHz crystals, but not by enough to 
make 2.5MHz or 5MHz standards popular any longer.


One lonely data point, which proves nothing:  My best crystal oscillator 
is a Symmetricom clone of the double-oven HP 10811s (it came out of an 
HP GPSDO, so apparently HP at one time used them interchangeably with 
the 10811).  That OCXO uses a 5MHz crystal and a frequency doubler to 
produce its 10MHz output.


Best Regards,

Charles


___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 10MHz to 25MHz

[David]

On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 21:06:04 -0800, you wrote:

>On 1/18/2017 6:34 PM, David wrote:
>
>> An alternative very simple design I might try is a variation of the
>> active frequency multiplier where the 5th harmonic is filtered
>> directly from the output of the digital divide by two stage.
>
>That's a useful trick to reduce the filtering burden.  Having said
>that, if you need good spectral purity, the filtering is still
>going to be very non-trivial.  The original poster is obviously
>not an expert in filters and will not be successful trying that
>approach, except for very low performance design.  Even if
>you are a filter expert, components are hard to get.
>
>Rick N6RK

I only suggested it because Loren seemed dead set on a harmonic
frequency multiplier.  The output from a digital logic gate will
already have a strong 5th harmonic so no extra passive or active
harmonic generating stage is needed.  The document I linked discusses
the filtering requirements like notching out the strong 3rd harmonic.

If spectral purity is important, then this is the wrong way to go
about it; it would be better to phase lock a separate crystal
oscillator.  In some applications I would also be concerned about the
phase of a narrow bandpass filter changing with temperature.
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 10MHz to 25MHz

[Loren Moline WA7SKT]

Thanks Bob


Loren Moline  WA7SKT

Member: Pacific Northwest VHF Society and ARRL
Member: Hearsat Satellite Monitoring Group.  www.uhf-satcom.com
Member: CVARS-Chehalis Valley Amateur Radio Society
Starchat IRC: Channel = #hearsat
RF Electronics: Starchat IRC: Channel = #rfelectronics
Grid: CN86mr



From: time-nuts  on behalf of Bob Camp 

Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 6:08 PM
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] 10MHz to 25MHz

Hi

What are you going to use the 25 MHz for? Will it drive any sort of radio? If 
so, cleaning up the phase
noise of the GPSDO is a *very* good idea. With a PLL, you can *subtract* noise. 
With a multiplier you
can only *add* noise. The narrow bandwidth PLL combined with a low nose VCXO is 
your friend in this case.

I would take the process one step further. I'd lock up a 100 MHz VCXO to the 10 
MHz. Then you can get
100, 50, 25, and 20 MHz outputs. The 100 MHz is the key if you want to head up 
into the microwave
region.

Bob

> On Jan 18, 2017, at 8:40 PM, Loren Moline WA7SKT  wrote:
>
> Are you talking about locking the 50MHz VCXO to my 10 MH. Standard? I want 
> the 25MHz to be from my 10MHz OCXO which is my station standard which will 
> locked to GPS eventually.
>
> Loren WA7SKT
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:01 PM -0800, "Richard (Rick) Karlquist" 
> > wrote:
>
>
> A better and easier way is to phase lock a crystal oscillator.
> I would use a 50 MHz VCXO and divide the output by 2 to get a
> 25 MHz square wave.
>
> Rick N6RK
>
> On 1/18/2017 10:28 AM, Loren Moline WA7SKT wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am looking for a good X5 multiplier to use to generate a 25MHz signal from 
>> my 10MHz OCXO. I want to divide by 2 and multiply by 5 with a bandpass 
>> filter in the output and then a 3.3 volt 25MHz signal out.
>>
>>
>> Maybe someone has better ways?
>>
>>
>> Loren Moline  WA7SKT
>>
>> Member: Pacific Northwest VHF Society and ARRL
>> Member: Hearsat Satellite Monitoring Group.  
>> www.uhf-satcom.com
UHF-Satcom.com - The #1 online resource for VHF to EHF satellite reception and 
monitoring
www.uhf-satcom.com
UHF-Satcom.com - the online place for VHF to EHF satcom monitoring uhf vhf shf 
ehf ku-band c-band p-band l-band s-band x-band



>> Member: CVARS-Chehalis Valley Amateur Radio Society
>> Starchat IRC: Channel = #hearsat
>> RF Electronics: Starchat IRC: Channel = #rfelectronics
>> Grid: CN86mr
>> ___
>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
>> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>> and follow the instructions there.
>>
>>
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Thunderbolt Harmonics

[jimlux]

On 1/18/17 8:04 PM, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:

Am 18.01.2017 um 22:12 schrieb Bob Camp:

Yeah, but it's easier (cheaper if you're paying for labor) just to
buy a box of 10 filters at $30/each and stack them

Be *very* careful cascading those Min-Circuits filters without putting
some sort of isolation between them. You can get all
sorts of wonky results as the reactances in one mis-terminates the
reactances in another.

Bob

But you can be quite lucky:

1 SLP15+ filter (15 MHz Low pass):
<
https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/31554251684/in/album-72157662535945536/




3 filters cascaded
<
https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/32019253490/in/album-72157662535945536/




And the SLP10.7+ is very similar, except the 3dB down is around 13.5 
MHz, and it's down 33 dB at 20 MHz.
As a practical matter, a chain of two SLP10.7 knocks the harmonics from 
a Wenzel streamline down below the broadband noise floor when measured 
with a system with 4 dB NF.




___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] PN/AM and 1.5Hz spur from frequency doubling?

[John Miles]

You may find that the behavior varies quite a bit depending on what you put 
between the maser output and the doubler.  I've seen one case in particular 
that generates a ton of PM spurs, specifically an HP 11721A doubler driven by 
the 5 MHz output of a 5061A Cs standard.  The 5 MHz output uses a narrowband 
transformer with a parallel-tuned primary, so it looks highly reactive at 
frequencies other than 5 MHz.  I'm not sure what's really going on, but the 
11721A (which is being run below its frequency spec in this case) doesn't seem 
happy at all ( http://www.ke5fx.com/11721a.png ).  Adding an SLP-5 lowpass 
filter in front of the 11721A makes the spurs go away, as does an isolation amp.

The 1.5 Hz spur in your plot looks like leakage from a nearby 10 MHz source, 
presumably a free-running OCXO that's a bit off frequency.  The rest of it 
looks like an open coax shield or something.  (If you're using a coaxial balun, 
try removing it.)  It's possible to get 2-3 dB of excess noise from a 
multiplier beyond the expected 20*log(N), depending on source and load 
characteristics, but I haven't seen anything that bad in the absence of other 
problems.

-- john, KE5FX
Miles Design LLC

> >> I'm seeing +20-30 dBc/Hz of excess AM/PN, as well as a strong 1.5 Hz spur
> >> created by frequency doubling from 5 MHz to 10 MHz.
> >> https://goo.gl/photos/GFx9tQoxrSmyzUQo8
> >> The input amplitude to the doubler should be just above the
> recommended 11
> >> dBm.
> >> What's going on??
> >>
> >> thanks!
> >> Anders

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.