Digital tight PLL method
Concerning the simple, $10, Low cost, Tight PLL method of doing ADEV.
"If you accept that the measurement is going to be limited by the Reference
Osc,
Then for Low COST and SIMPLE, with the ability to measure ADEVs at very low
levels,
Can't beat a simple analog version of NIST's "Tight Phase-Lock Loop Method
of measuring Freq stability".
http://tf.nist.gov/phase/Properties/one.htm#oneone Fig 1.7"
Here is some more information on the subject that may help inspire some of
the great minds out there.
In spite of all the unjustified criticism, the latest test will show, at
least to the more open minded nuts,
There is NOTHING inherently wrong with the tight PLL method as I have done
it. It gives about as good of answers as anything out there.
As I've implemented it, there are some disadvantages, because there is just
so much one can do with a single Op amp design.
If one does the calculation they will also see the OP amp is not a limiting
factor in the performance of this method.
AS I have said before, the disadvantage of my simple BB version that was
tested, is that it is limited by the Ref Osc and the way it's freq is
modified.
The accuracy is limited by the fact the first simple BB version I built is
an all analog system.
That is solely because the frequency control I used on the simple version is
the analog EFC input of the reference Osc.
I've also pointed out, that is not a limitation of the method, there are
solutions for that.
Now I'm amazed that no one has had a New inspiration.
Maybe a more direct approach will help some to see the next logical step.
Using the same basic tight PLL method, make some of the unit digital.
Do not modify the freq of the reference osc with analog, GET it yet?
That way the device would be half digital without any of the analog
shortcoming or the need to physically change the reference freq.
Do I really need to explain more?
Have fun
ws
Warren,
you are not the only person to have ideas like this!
I managed to get me a Stanford Research DS345 generator which gives 1E-6 Hz
frequency resolution for any frequency below 30 MHz (Can be locked to any 10
MHz reference). At 10 MHz this resembles a relative resolution of 1E-13. I
used this generator in a digital pll where the phase error was measured by a
DBM and a a HP3457. The digital PLL was a simple script written with my
EZGPIB utility which controlled the DS345 and read the HP3457 via IEEE488.
The main difference to your analogue solution is that it delivers a
frequency measurement value immediately (= the current setting of the DS345)
without any knowledge needed about the mixer's phase gain properties. And it
is not limited to a certain frequency. Of course, the generator may be
exchanged by an DIY DDS and the multimeter may be exchanged against a DIY
A/D converter. Injection locking is not a topic with the DDS circuit.
Nevertheless my measurement were not exactly encouraging. May be that I
missed to apply the important math that Bruce has been suggesting in the
discussion with you. All the stuff is on my workbench and is ready to use.
May be I give it another try.
Best regards
Ulrich Bangert
-----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
Von: time-nuts-bounces@febo.com
[mailto:time-nuts-bounces@febo.com] Im Auftrag von WarrenS
Gesendet: Montag, 24. Mai 2010 18:49
An: John Miles; Tom Van Baak; Discussion of precise time and
frequency measurement
Betreff: [time-nuts] Digital tight PLL method
Concerning the simple, $10, Low cost, Tight PLL method of doing ADEV.
"If you accept that the measurement is going to be limited by
the Reference
Osc,
Then for Low COST and SIMPLE, with the ability to measure
ADEVs at very low
levels,
Can't beat a simple analog version of NIST's "Tight
Phase-Lock Loop Method
of measuring Freq stability".
http://tf.nist.gov/phase/Properties/one.htm#oneone Fig 1.7"
Here is some more information on the subject that may help
inspire some of
the great minds out there.
In spite of all the unjustified criticism, the latest test
will show, at
least to the more open minded nuts,
There is NOTHING inherently wrong with the tight PLL method
as I have done
it. It gives about as good of answers as anything out there.
As I've implemented it, there are some disadvantages, because
there is just
so much one can do with a single Op amp design.
If one does the calculation they will also see the OP amp is
not a limiting
factor in the performance of this method.
AS I have said before, the disadvantage of my simple BB
version that was
tested, is that it is limited by the Ref Osc and the way it's freq is
modified.
The accuracy is limited by the fact the first simple BB
version I built is
an all analog system.
That is solely because the frequency control I used on the
simple version is
the analog EFC input of the reference Osc.
I've also pointed out, that is not a limitation of the
method, there are
solutions for that.
Now I'm amazed that no one has had a New inspiration.
Maybe a more direct approach will help some to see the next
logical step. Using the same basic tight PLL method, make
some of the unit digital. Do not modify the freq of the
reference osc with analog, GET it yet? That way the device
would be half digital without any of the analog
shortcoming or the need to physically change the reference
freq. Do I really need to explain more?
Have fun
ws
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.
Hi
Sounds like your bill of material was a bit above $10.
Bob
On May 26, 2010, at 4:42 AM, Ulrich Bangert wrote:
Warren,
you are not the only person to have ideas like this!
I managed to get me a Stanford Research DS345 generator which gives 1E-6 Hz
frequency resolution for any frequency below 30 MHz (Can be locked to any 10
MHz reference). At 10 MHz this resembles a relative resolution of 1E-13. I
used this generator in a digital pll where the phase error was measured by a
DBM and a a HP3457. The digital PLL was a simple script written with my
EZGPIB utility which controlled the DS345 and read the HP3457 via IEEE488.
The main difference to your analogue solution is that it delivers a
frequency measurement value immediately (= the current setting of the DS345)
without any knowledge needed about the mixer's phase gain properties. And it
is not limited to a certain frequency. Of course, the generator may be
exchanged by an DIY DDS and the multimeter may be exchanged against a DIY
A/D converter. Injection locking is not a topic with the DDS circuit.
Nevertheless my measurement were not exactly encouraging. May be that I
missed to apply the important math that Bruce has been suggesting in the
discussion with you. All the stuff is on my workbench and is ready to use.
May be I give it another try.
Best regards
Ulrich Bangert
-----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
Von: time-nuts-bounces@febo.com
[mailto:time-nuts-bounces@febo.com] Im Auftrag von WarrenS
Gesendet: Montag, 24. Mai 2010 18:49
An: John Miles; Tom Van Baak; Discussion of precise time and
frequency measurement
Betreff: [time-nuts] Digital tight PLL method
Concerning the simple, $10, Low cost, Tight PLL method of doing ADEV.
"If you accept that the measurement is going to be limited by
the Reference
Osc,
Then for Low COST and SIMPLE, with the ability to measure
ADEVs at very low
levels,
Can't beat a simple analog version of NIST's "Tight
Phase-Lock Loop Method
of measuring Freq stability".
http://tf.nist.gov/phase/Properties/one.htm#oneone Fig 1.7"
Here is some more information on the subject that may help
inspire some of
the great minds out there.
In spite of all the unjustified criticism, the latest test
will show, at
least to the more open minded nuts,
There is NOTHING inherently wrong with the tight PLL method
as I have done
it. It gives about as good of answers as anything out there.
As I've implemented it, there are some disadvantages, because
there is just
so much one can do with a single Op amp design.
If one does the calculation they will also see the OP amp is
not a limiting
factor in the performance of this method.
AS I have said before, the disadvantage of my simple BB
version that was
tested, is that it is limited by the Ref Osc and the way it's freq is
modified.
The accuracy is limited by the fact the first simple BB
version I built is
an all analog system.
That is solely because the frequency control I used on the
simple version is
the analog EFC input of the reference Osc.
I've also pointed out, that is not a limitation of the
method, there are
solutions for that.
Now I'm amazed that no one has had a New inspiration.
Maybe a more direct approach will help some to see the next
logical step. Using the same basic tight PLL method, make
some of the unit digital. Do not modify the freq of the
reference osc with analog, GET it yet? That way the device
would be half digital without any of the analog
shortcoming or the need to physically change the reference
freq. Do I really need to explain more?
Have fun
ws
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.
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.
Bob,
sure! But I own this stuff not only for this purpose...
Best regards
Ulrich Bangert
-----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
Von: time-nuts-bounces@febo.com
[mailto:time-nuts-bounces@febo.com] Im Auftrag von Bob Camp
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 26. Mai 2010 12:57
An: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Betreff: Re: [time-nuts] Digital tight PLL method
Hi
Sounds like your bill of material was a bit above $10.
Bob
On May 26, 2010, at 4:42 AM, Ulrich Bangert wrote:
Warren,
you are not the only person to have ideas like this!
I managed to get me a Stanford Research DS345 generator which gives
1E-6 Hz frequency resolution for any frequency below 30 MHz (Can be
locked to any 10 MHz reference). At 10 MHz this resembles a
relative
resolution of 1E-13. I used this generator in a digital pll
where the
phase error was measured by a DBM and a a HP3457. The
digital PLL was
a simple script written with my EZGPIB utility which controlled the
DS345 and read the HP3457 via IEEE488. The main difference to your
analogue solution is that it delivers a frequency measurement value
immediately (= the current setting of the DS345) without
any knowledge
needed about the mixer's phase gain properties. And it is
not limited
to a certain frequency. Of course, the generator may be
exchanged by
an DIY DDS and the multimeter may be exchanged against a DIY A/D
converter. Injection locking is not a topic with the DDS circuit.
Nevertheless my measurement were not exactly encouraging.
May be that
I missed to apply the important math that Bruce has been
suggesting in
the discussion with you. All the stuff is on my workbench
and is ready
to use. May be I give it another try.
Best regards
Ulrich Bangert
-----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
Von: time-nuts-bounces@febo.com
[mailto:time-nuts-bounces@febo.com] Im Auftrag von WarrenS
Gesendet: Montag, 24. Mai 2010 18:49
An: John Miles; Tom Van Baak; Discussion of precise time and
frequency measurement
Betreff: [time-nuts] Digital tight PLL method
Concerning the simple, $10, Low cost, Tight PLL method of
doing ADEV.
"If you accept that the measurement is going to be limited by
the Reference
Osc,
Then for Low COST and SIMPLE, with the ability to measure
ADEVs at very low
levels,
Can't beat a simple analog version of NIST's "Tight
Phase-Lock Loop Method
of measuring Freq stability".
http://tf.nist.gov/phase/Properties/one.htm#oneone Fig 1.7"
Here is some more information on the subject that may help
inspire some of
the great minds out there.
In spite of all the unjustified criticism, the latest test
will show, at
least to the more open minded nuts,
There is NOTHING inherently wrong with the tight PLL method
as I have done
it. It gives about as good of answers as anything out there.
As I've implemented it, there are some disadvantages, because
there is just
so much one can do with a single Op amp design.
If one does the calculation they will also see the OP amp is
not a limiting
factor in the performance of this method.
AS I have said before, the disadvantage of my simple BB
version that was
tested, is that it is limited by the Ref Osc and the way
it's freq is
modified.
The accuracy is limited by the fact the first simple BB
version I built is
an all analog system.
That is solely because the frequency control I used on the
simple version is
the analog EFC input of the reference Osc.
I've also pointed out, that is not a limitation of the
method, there are
solutions for that.
Now I'm amazed that no one has had a New inspiration.
Maybe a more direct approach will help some to see the next
logical step. Using the same basic tight PLL method, make
some of the unit digital. Do not modify the freq of the
reference osc with analog, GET it yet? That way the device
would be half digital without any of the analog
shortcoming or the need to physically change the reference
freq. Do I really need to explain more?
Have fun
ws
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.
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.
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.
Ulrich
Close in spurs generated by the synthesiser may also be problematic.
One feature being that the spur levels will depend (in a complex way) on
the synthesiser output frequency.
One of the first problems to solve is making the close in spurs
sufficiently low.
Another problem is to ensure that the synthesiser output is phase
continuous (not a problem with DDS but close in spurs may be).
Bruce
Ulrich Bangert wrote:
Warren,
you are not the only person to have ideas like this!
I managed to get me a Stanford Research DS345 generator which gives 1E-6 Hz
frequency resolution for any frequency below 30 MHz (Can be locked to any 10
MHz reference). At 10 MHz this resembles a relative resolution of 1E-13. I
used this generator in a digital pll where the phase error was measured by a
DBM and a a HP3457. The digital PLL was a simple script written with my
EZGPIB utility which controlled the DS345 and read the HP3457 via IEEE488.
The main difference to your analogue solution is that it delivers a
frequency measurement value immediately (= the current setting of the DS345)
without any knowledge needed about the mixer's phase gain properties. And it
is not limited to a certain frequency. Of course, the generator may be
exchanged by an DIY DDS and the multimeter may be exchanged against a DIY
A/D converter. Injection locking is not a topic with the DDS circuit.
Nevertheless my measurement were not exactly encouraging. May be that I
missed to apply the important math that Bruce has been suggesting in the
discussion with you. All the stuff is on my workbench and is ready to use.
May be I give it another try.
Best regards
Ulrich Bangert
-----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
Von: time-nuts-bounces@febo.com
[mailto:time-nuts-bounces@febo.com] Im Auftrag von WarrenS
Gesendet: Montag, 24. Mai 2010 18:49
An: John Miles; Tom Van Baak; Discussion of precise time and
frequency measurement
Betreff: [time-nuts] Digital tight PLL method
Concerning the simple, $10, Low cost, Tight PLL method of doing ADEV.
"If you accept that the measurement is going to be limited by
the Reference
Osc,
Then for Low COST and SIMPLE, with the ability to measure
ADEVs at very low
levels,
Can't beat a simple analog version of NIST's "Tight
Phase-Lock Loop Method
of measuring Freq stability".
http://tf.nist.gov/phase/Properties/one.htm#oneone Fig 1.7"
Here is some more information on the subject that may help
inspire some of
the great minds out there.
In spite of all the unjustified criticism, the latest test
will show, at
least to the more open minded nuts,
There is NOTHING inherently wrong with the tight PLL method
as I have done
it. It gives about as good of answers as anything out there.
As I've implemented it, there are some disadvantages, because
there is just
so much one can do with a single Op amp design.
If one does the calculation they will also see the OP amp is
not a limiting
factor in the performance of this method.
AS I have said before, the disadvantage of my simple BB
version that was
tested, is that it is limited by the Ref Osc and the way it's freq is
modified.
The accuracy is limited by the fact the first simple BB
version I built is
an all analog system.
That is solely because the frequency control I used on the
simple version is
the analog EFC input of the reference Osc.
I've also pointed out, that is not a limitation of the
method, there are
solutions for that.
Now I'm amazed that no one has had a New inspiration.
Maybe a more direct approach will help some to see the next
logical step. Using the same basic tight PLL method, make
some of the unit digital. Do not modify the freq of the
reference osc with analog, GET it yet? That way the device
would be half digital without any of the analog
shortcoming or the need to physically change the reference
freq. Do I really need to explain more?
Have fun
ws
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.
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.
Hi
There are some interesting plots out there showing AVAR on a clean signal and AVAR on the same with a 120 db down spur. Phase noise measurements do have their place working some of this stuff out.
Bob
On May 26, 2010, at 7:11 AM, Bruce Griffiths wrote:
Ulrich
Close in spurs generated by the synthesiser may also be problematic.
One feature being that the spur levels will depend (in a complex way) on the synthesiser output frequency.
One of the first problems to solve is making the close in spurs sufficiently low.
Another problem is to ensure that the synthesiser output is phase continuous (not a problem with DDS but close in spurs may be).
Bruce
Ulrich Bangert wrote:
Warren,
you are not the only person to have ideas like this!
I managed to get me a Stanford Research DS345 generator which gives 1E-6 Hz
frequency resolution for any frequency below 30 MHz (Can be locked to any 10
MHz reference). At 10 MHz this resembles a relative resolution of 1E-13. I
used this generator in a digital pll where the phase error was measured by a
DBM and a a HP3457. The digital PLL was a simple script written with my
EZGPIB utility which controlled the DS345 and read the HP3457 via IEEE488.
The main difference to your analogue solution is that it delivers a
frequency measurement value immediately (= the current setting of the DS345)
without any knowledge needed about the mixer's phase gain properties. And it
is not limited to a certain frequency. Of course, the generator may be
exchanged by an DIY DDS and the multimeter may be exchanged against a DIY
A/D converter. Injection locking is not a topic with the DDS circuit.
Nevertheless my measurement were not exactly encouraging. May be that I
missed to apply the important math that Bruce has been suggesting in the
discussion with you. All the stuff is on my workbench and is ready to use.
May be I give it another try.
Best regards
Ulrich Bangert
-----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
Von: time-nuts-bounces@febo.com
[mailto:time-nuts-bounces@febo.com] Im Auftrag von WarrenS
Gesendet: Montag, 24. Mai 2010 18:49
An: John Miles; Tom Van Baak; Discussion of precise time and
frequency measurement
Betreff: [time-nuts] Digital tight PLL method
Concerning the simple, $10, Low cost, Tight PLL method of doing ADEV.
"If you accept that the measurement is going to be limited by
the Reference
Osc,
Then for Low COST and SIMPLE, with the ability to measure
ADEVs at very low
levels,
Can't beat a simple analog version of NIST's "Tight
Phase-Lock Loop Method
of measuring Freq stability".
http://tf.nist.gov/phase/Properties/one.htm#oneone Fig 1.7"
Here is some more information on the subject that may help
inspire some of
the great minds out there.
In spite of all the unjustified criticism, the latest test
will show, at
least to the more open minded nuts,
There is NOTHING inherently wrong with the tight PLL method
as I have done
it. It gives about as good of answers as anything out there.
As I've implemented it, there are some disadvantages, because
there is just
so much one can do with a single Op amp design.
If one does the calculation they will also see the OP amp is
not a limiting
factor in the performance of this method.
AS I have said before, the disadvantage of my simple BB
version that was
tested, is that it is limited by the Ref Osc and the way it's freq is
modified.
The accuracy is limited by the fact the first simple BB
version I built is
an all analog system.
That is solely because the frequency control I used on the
simple version is
the analog EFC input of the reference Osc.
I've also pointed out, that is not a limitation of the
method, there are
solutions for that.
Now I'm amazed that no one has had a New inspiration.
Maybe a more direct approach will help some to see the next
logical step. Using the same basic tight PLL method, make
some of the unit digital. Do not modify the freq of the
reference osc with analog, GET it yet? That way the device
would be half digital without any of the analog
shortcoming or the need to physically change the reference
freq. Do I really need to explain more?
Have fun
ws
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.
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.
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.
Hi
One thing about the math - it may not be easy stuff. A lot of the seemingly easy stuff we use took a lot of work to come up with. Many very smart people worked for many years on this stuff before they got all the little details right in the formulas. Even HP got it wrong when they first started converting phase noise to the time domain. It took them a couple of years to get it straight.
Bob
On May 26, 2010, at 4:42 AM, Ulrich Bangert wrote:
Warren,
you are not the only person to have ideas like this!
I managed to get me a Stanford Research DS345 generator which gives 1E-6 Hz
frequency resolution for any frequency below 30 MHz (Can be locked to any 10
MHz reference). At 10 MHz this resembles a relative resolution of 1E-13. I
used this generator in a digital pll where the phase error was measured by a
DBM and a a HP3457. The digital PLL was a simple script written with my
EZGPIB utility which controlled the DS345 and read the HP3457 via IEEE488.
The main difference to your analogue solution is that it delivers a
frequency measurement value immediately (= the current setting of the DS345)
without any knowledge needed about the mixer's phase gain properties. And it
is not limited to a certain frequency. Of course, the generator may be
exchanged by an DIY DDS and the multimeter may be exchanged against a DIY
A/D converter. Injection locking is not a topic with the DDS circuit.
Nevertheless my measurement were not exactly encouraging. May be that I
missed to apply the important math that Bruce has been suggesting in the
discussion with you. All the stuff is on my workbench and is ready to use.
May be I give it another try.
Best regards
Ulrich Bangert
-----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
Von: time-nuts-bounces@febo.com
[mailto:time-nuts-bounces@febo.com] Im Auftrag von WarrenS
Gesendet: Montag, 24. Mai 2010 18:49
An: John Miles; Tom Van Baak; Discussion of precise time and
frequency measurement
Betreff: [time-nuts] Digital tight PLL method
Concerning the simple, $10, Low cost, Tight PLL method of doing ADEV.
"If you accept that the measurement is going to be limited by
the Reference
Osc,
Then for Low COST and SIMPLE, with the ability to measure
ADEVs at very low
levels,
Can't beat a simple analog version of NIST's "Tight
Phase-Lock Loop Method
of measuring Freq stability".
http://tf.nist.gov/phase/Properties/one.htm#oneone Fig 1.7"
Here is some more information on the subject that may help
inspire some of
the great minds out there.
In spite of all the unjustified criticism, the latest test
will show, at
least to the more open minded nuts,
There is NOTHING inherently wrong with the tight PLL method
as I have done
it. It gives about as good of answers as anything out there.
As I've implemented it, there are some disadvantages, because
there is just
so much one can do with a single Op amp design.
If one does the calculation they will also see the OP amp is
not a limiting
factor in the performance of this method.
AS I have said before, the disadvantage of my simple BB
version that was
tested, is that it is limited by the Ref Osc and the way it's freq is
modified.
The accuracy is limited by the fact the first simple BB
version I built is
an all analog system.
That is solely because the frequency control I used on the
simple version is
the analog EFC input of the reference Osc.
I've also pointed out, that is not a limitation of the
method, there are
solutions for that.
Now I'm amazed that no one has had a New inspiration.
Maybe a more direct approach will help some to see the next
logical step. Using the same basic tight PLL method, make
some of the unit digital. Do not modify the freq of the
reference osc with analog, GET it yet? That way the device
would be half digital without any of the analog
shortcoming or the need to physically change the reference
freq. Do I really need to explain more?
Have fun
ws
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.
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.
On 25 May 2010 04:48, WarrenS warrensjmail-one@yahoo.com wrote:
Can't beat a simple analog version of NIST's "Tight Phase-Lock Loop Method
of measuring Freq stability".
http://tf.nist.gov/phase/Properties/one.htm#oneone Fig 1.7"
I can't seem to access that link, can anyone else?
Steve
Steve Rooke - ZL3TUV & G8KVD
A man with one clock knows what time it is;
A man with two clocks is never quite sure.
Worked fine for me and very informative.
Joe
-----Original Message-----
From: time-nuts-bounces@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-bounces@febo.com] On
Behalf Of Steve Rooke
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 9:51 AM
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Digital tight PLL method
On 25 May 2010 04:48, WarrenS warrensjmail-one@yahoo.com wrote:
Can't beat a simple analog version of NIST's "Tight Phase-Lock Loop
Method
of measuring Freq stability".
http://tf.nist.gov/phase/Properties/one.htm#oneone Fig 1.7"
I can't seem to access that link, can anyone else?
Steve
Steve Rooke - ZL3TUV & G8KVD
A man with one clock knows what time it is;
A man with two clocks is never quite sure.
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.
Hi
Works from here. It's a very brief description of pretty much every way in
the world to measure frequency.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: time-nuts-bounces@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-bounces@febo.com] On
Behalf Of Steve Rooke
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 10:51 AM
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Digital tight PLL method
On 25 May 2010 04:48, WarrenS warrensjmail-one@yahoo.com wrote:
Can't beat a simple analog version of NIST's "Tight Phase-Lock Loop
Method
of measuring Freq stability".
http://tf.nist.gov/phase/Properties/one.htm#oneone Fig 1.7"
I can't seem to access that link, can anyone else?
Steve
Steve Rooke - ZL3TUV & G8KVD
A man with one clock knows what time it is;
A man with two clocks is never quite sure.
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.