Bruce, The more I read the specs, the more obvious it becomes. I did not realize how jittery these things are.
I am still trying to get more info on how clean the LO has to be, but I am pretty sure it will be close to telecom specs. Thanks, Didier Dr Bruce Griffiths wrote: > Didier Juges wrote: > >> This is for a price sensitive commercial application, not a science >> project and he is trying to minimize the amount of hardware at the far >> end for cost and maintenance reasons. >> A cleanup PLL becomes very costly when dealing with a frequency agile >> system. >> >> Thanks >> >> Didier >> >> Hal Murray wrote: >> >> >>>> A friend of mine wants to send a 3 GHz LO signal up a fiber optic cable. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> How crazy is your friend? What's wrong with a cleanup PLL? >>> >>> As Bruce said, the people I know of who are good in that area are the radio >>> astronomers. They need timing (phase) stability rather than just >>> frequency, >>> so their problem may be harder than yours. >>> >>> Beware: time sink alert. His references are fun reading. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> time-nuts mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts >> >> >> > Didier > > Without a cleanup PLL the project is dead in the water. > The photonic link will be too noisy for just about any application > imagineable. > > Bruce > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > > _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list [email protected] https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
