Hi Attila
thanks for your input. and thanks for the links !
I'll meet my low-spec option using ADF4356 integer mode, and a 394 MHz
off the self $2 SAW filter on the output.
That is what I'll do for the moment. I have the ADF4356 here on a eval
board ADI lent me. It is not bad for an internal VCO chip. makes 126/
10k @ 400 megs. Actually the Hittite HMC1033 is slightly better but 26
weeks..... Discrete VCO using a TriTech TEM resonator (Q=400 400 MHz)
was good also, with integer PLL chip. Maybe use a ceramic resonator up
at 1.6 GHz where there is more Q and the chips are designed for the 1-4
GHz VCO input (LTC6945 etc)
When I need to get the 5kHz to 100kHz noise down, I'l probably go for
direct multiplication.
73
On 8/1/2020 2:06 PM, Attila Kinali wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 21:56:42 +1000
glen english LIST <[email protected]> wrote:
- a double-double-double could work, but my experience is for x2 x2 x2 I
really need to filter well at each stage to avoid sum and difference
products.. which might be OK for this application , especially if I
filter really well after the first x2 . but avoid if I can. filters at
908 MHz need space, and shield cans where it is going.
Frequency multiplying would be probably the easiest to get low noise,
followed by a well designed PLL system. Though -115dBc spurs is tough,
- and I dont know too much about phase noise and SRD or varactor
multipliers. but maybe that's an option.
SDR are prety low noise. From NLTLs we know that varactor systems can
exhibit increased flicker noise levels (probably due to bias point
instability).
- onboard VCO chip/PLLs have all sorts of unrelated spurs in the output.
- sure I can use a good PLL and a external VCO, but if my N value is
fixed, and I can use injection locking, why bother with the PLL chip
that is likely to introduce PD related spurs anyway.
The generic way in this case is to build a PLL using frequency multiplier
for the reference and a narrow loop filter after the phase detector.
Placing zeros at the multiples of the (unmultiplied) reference frequency
in the loop filter will reduce the spurs quite considerably.
Injection locking is finicky. To injection lock, the resonator has to be
pretty much on frequency to begin with, and kept that way. But unlike with
other systems, you have no feedback system where get information how far
off you are to control the frequency. Unless you build a hybrid system
of an oscialltor with a Pound lock[5,6] (e.g. like cryogenic sapphire
oscillators use[7])
You want to read Adler's paper[1] at the very least before you start.
A look at the work byHuntoon/Weiss[2] and Kurokawa[3,4] is probably also
beneficial.
Attila Kinali
[1] "A Study of Locking Phenomena in oscillators", by Robert Adler, 1946
(reprinted 1973)
[2] "Synchornization of Ocillators", By Huntoon and Weiss, 1947
[3] "Injection Locking of Microwave Solid-State Oscillators", by Kurokawa, 1973
[4] "Noise in Synchronized Oscillators", by Kurokawa, 1968
[5] "Electronic Frequency Stabilization of Microwave Oscillators", by Pound,
1946
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1770414
[6] "Frequency-Stabilized Oscillator Unit Notes and Instructions", by
Lawrance, 1946
https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/5024/1/RLE-TR-022-14254857.pdf
[7] "An Ultra-Low Noise Microwave Oscillator Based on a High-Q Liquid Nitrogen
Cooled
Sapphire Resonator", by Woode, Tobar, Ivanov, 1995
_______________________________________________
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.
