On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 18:05:15 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
time-nuts Digest, Vol 216, Issue 19 > Message: 4 > Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2022 06:31:27 -0700 > From: "Richard (Rick) Karlquist" <[email protected]> > Subject: [time-nuts] Re: +1/f of transistors > To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement > <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > > I am seeing a lot of unsupported "theories" about what should be done > to make devices with low 1/f noise. .... > > JMG: Hmm. What do you make of Handel's quantum theory of flicker noise? > Van Der Ziel did support it, saying that while he (Ziel) didn't know > if the derivation of the theory was correct, he _did_ know that this > theory fit all the data he had collected over the decades, and > nothing else fit nearly so well. Meaning that this kind of fit may > be a big clue, even if the present theory isn't airtight. This was > forty years ago. I'd guess that some people may be using Handel's > theory simply because of the agreement with all that data. If I > recall, he did predict that 1/f noise is inversely proportional to > active volume, which is certainly as long observed - thus the > paralleling of multiple smaller transistors or other devices. > > .<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_1/f_noise> Sorry for the delay in replying - I did't notice this under all the other stuff. I was aware of the Wiki summary, but wondered if there was anything more. I haven't heard much for 30 years, so it probably didn't go anywhere. If it did, I'd guess that someone here would know. Thanks, Joe Gwinn _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] -- To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to and follow the instructions there.
