Magnus, >If you flip back and forth, then it makes sense because your phase deviations >will be less.
Can you further explain this? Thanks. On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Magnus Danielson <mag...@rubidium.dyndns.org > wrote: > Hi Bill, > > > On 05/07/2012 05:12 AM, Bill Hawkins wrote: > >> Thanks for the analysis, Magnus. >> > > Always happy to contribute. > > > A few other time constants might be interesting - >> >> When a step change is made to the control voltage or current, >> how long does it take for the oscillator to settle down to a >> new value? Is it instantaneous compared to a second? >> > > It depends on the rubidium FLL bandwidth. For OCXO it is much quicker. > > > Do different components in different oscillators affect the >> settling time? >> > > For rubidiums, yes. The FLL bandwidth will have such a "lag" effect until > the slaved OXXO is back on track. > > > It is not useful to make the next change before the last one >> is complete, at least for sampled systems. Using counters >> filters the change rather than taking a sample. >> > > If you flip back and forth, then it makes sense because your phase > deviations will be less. > > You should however consider it when doing the stability analysis. > > > Cheers, > Magnus > > ______________________________**_________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/** > mailman/listinfo/time-nuts<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.
