Hi That plot is very similar to what I have seen on AC gates.
The usual mumble words apply - that was > 15 years ago and semiconductor processes have changed a bit since then. Bob On Feb 26, 2010, at 5:54 AM, John Miles wrote: > Hi, Garry -- > >> I knew from other people's measurements that 74AC was capable of better >> than -160dBc/Hz when used to make a phase detector at 10MHz, but I >> wanted to do a quick feasibility check on a divider for an application a >> couple of years ago. >> >> The 74AC163 was powered from a linear bench supply via a long (many >> seconds) RC time constant plus local decoupling. I adjusted the supply >> to give 5V at the IC when it was operating. >> >> The 100MHz OCXO, which gave 18dBm into 50 ohm, was AC-coupled into the >> clock input, which was biased to half the supply voltage. The counter >> was left dividing by 16, as its propagation delay and set-up times are >> too long to programme it to divide by 10 with 100MHz clock rate. The >> output was AC-coupled directly to the E5052B input, without any >> filtering. I had to use the Qc output as the SSA doesn't work below >> 10MHz. >> >> The attached plot shows the 12.5MHz phase noise plus that of the 100MHz >> OCXO. The divider phase noise tracks 18dB below the OCXO at low offsets >> as expected, before its flicker noise and eventual noise floor >> predominate. I was primarily interested in seeing what the flicker noise >> was like, but I was surprised when I saw how low the floor was! >> >> The E5052B does the necessary calibration automatically before doing a >> measurement - from my experience with the instrument I have no reason to >> doubt the validity of the result. (The indicated 100MHz phase noise in >> the ~1-50kHz region is actually limited by the E5052B, owing to my >> setting only 100 correlations. However it shows it low enough to >> indicate that the CMOS noise dominates over that range.) >> >> I realise that a divider is very different from a simple inverter, but I >> think this gives an useful indication of what AC logic is capable of. > > Some interesting results, all right. The 74AC parts do seem to be quite > decent in the PN department. To try to corroborate your observations I ran > some residual PN tests on a 74AC04 inverter using a different measurement > technique (splitter+quadrature delay line): see http://www.ke5fx.com/ac.htm > . > > While I didn't achieve anything like the broadband floor you saw, I did find > that the close-in noise was quite a bit better than your E5052B plot showed. > It doesn't seem correct to blame your 1/f^3 slope below 1 kHz on CMOS > process noise, as it doesn't show up in a true residual test. That is more > likely to be your OCXO's PN profile, improved 18 dB by 20*log(N). It looks > virtually identical to a couple of Wenzel parts I measured awhile back > (attached). > > I agree that an edge conditioner and a clean Vcc supply could wring some > serious performance out of these chips. The power supply might account for > the broadband-floor deficit relative to your test setup; I'm not really sure > what to expect there. I made some PSU noise measurements awhile back but > the methodology was pretty bad and I don't really trust my results. Will > try to do some more in-depth tests later, to see what's really possible. > > -- john, KE5FX > <oscnoise.gif>_______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
