Hi Mark,
On 2019-01-09 08:27, Mark Goldberg wrote:
I believe I finally have my frequency measurement process refined and have
described it here:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1luVumTygkvfnDsZvGZGSsJA75IwMKmJ8
Comments, corrections and criticism are welcome.
I have not seen anyone comment on this post yet.
It's an interesting approach and in general, this is one of the ways we
can expect that frequency/stability measurements to be done these days,
by sampling the RF and analyze it.
It would be interesting to figure out why you have a "bump" there, so I
wonder what part does that.
For one thing, if the frequency estimation algorithm you depend on does
averaging/least-square style of algorithms, the lower taus will be
significantly lower than expected. TvB has some pretty good plots from
experiments illustrating this.
Another thing, one reason to get a "bump" is due to high Q in a PLL circuit.
However, I'd be careful to judge it to be any of these without more
careful look on the data.
It can be useful to alternate views to figure things out. For instance,
swapping between MDEV and TDEV could give you some hints. Similarly
swapping between frequency and phase does the same in raw-data view.
For phase/frequency plots, it may be worthwhile to average the data
using the +/- keys in TimeLab, as the filtering away high-frequency
noise may make it easier to see lower-frequency variations.
In general, I recommend you to have a third reference to play around
with and measure. As one fools around with different combinations one
learns to see which artefacts follows which device.
Do keep up the investigations. Try different approaches and learn.
Cheers,
Magnus
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe, go to
http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
and follow the instructions there.
