Empathy List Archives

E

ew

Mon, Oct 1, 2018 4:01 PM

I made a mistake in the previous post we use the ICS 570 with very good results in many applications. So it was easy to test. This has to be the easiest and lowest cost circuit. Start with an AC14 ST, followed by a divide by 5. I used part of a HC390 but a LS 90 will do. Take the 2 MHz output feed the input of the 570 and select 16X out comes 32 and 16 MHz. Material cost less than $ 5 regulator included.
Bert Kehren
In a message dated 10/1/2018 11:32:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, time-nuts@lists.febo.com writes:

Moot point with free running clock oscillators in the digitising soundcards often used. Some of the all in one cards with fast A/D's andFPGA's etc can take an external frequency reference.
Some "adjustment" of the data can be done in software, to calibrate thefrequency domain. Smoke and mirrors!
But yes, good point.
Dave B.
PS: Thanks to whoever mentioned the ICS525 or 527 IC's. Oddly, I'd notcome across that family of chips before. I'm currently messing with anold-school MC145151 PLL chip, to lock a 20.48MHz VCXO to 10MHz. I"abuse" the IC by swapping the reference and VCXO inputs to get theneeded division ratios (for an 80kHz phase comparison frequency.)
That and referencing the tuning diode from the +supply so the looptuning is the right way around seems to work scarily well.
The ICS525 would be a better bet perhaps, if I had to manufacture dozensof the things. However, making PCB's is an issue for me (no creationfacilities nor experience with the needed layout software) so "dead bug"construction is the way at the moment! Fun times...

<<

------------------------------------------------------------------------On 30/09/18 17:00, time-nuts-request@lists.febo.com wrote:> From: Pete Lancashire pete@petelancashire.com>>> It surprises me how the SDR designers in 90% of the cases don't even allow> for an external clock. It's like accuracy never came into thought.
-- Created on and sent from a Unix like PC running and using free and open source software.::
_______________________________________________time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.comTo unsubscribe, go to http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.comand follow the instructions there.

I made a mistake in the previous post we use the ICS 570 with very good results in many applications. So it was easy to test. This has to be the easiest and lowest cost circuit. Start with an AC14 ST, followed by a divide by 5. I used part of a HC390 but a LS 90 will do. Take the 2 MHz output feed the input of the 570 and select 16X out comes 32 and 16 MHz. Material cost less than $ 5 regulator included. Bert Kehren In a message dated 10/1/2018 11:32:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, time-nuts@lists.febo.com writes: Moot point with free running clock oscillators in the digitising soundcards often used. Some of the all in one cards with fast A/D's andFPGA's etc can take an external frequency reference. Some "adjustment" of the data can be done in software, to calibrate thefrequency domain. Smoke and mirrors! But yes, good point. Dave B. PS: Thanks to whoever mentioned the ICS525 or 527 IC's. Oddly, I'd notcome across that family of chips before. I'm currently messing with anold-school MC145151 PLL chip, to lock a 20.48MHz VCXO to 10MHz. I"abuse" the IC by swapping the reference and VCXO inputs to get theneeded division ratios (for an 80kHz phase comparison frequency.) That and referencing the tuning diode from the +supply so the looptuning is the right way around seems to work scarily well. The ICS525 would be a better bet perhaps, if I had to manufacture dozensof the things. However, making PCB's is an issue for me (no creationfacilities nor experience with the needed layout software) so "dead bug"construction is the way at the moment! Fun times... >><< ------------------------------------------------------------------------On 30/09/18 17:00, time-nuts-request@lists.febo.com wrote:> From: Pete Lancashire <pete@petelancashire.com>>>> It surprises me how the SDR designers in 90% of the cases don't even allow> for an external clock. It's like accuracy never came into thought. -- Created on and sent from a Unix like PC running and using free and open source software.:: _______________________________________________time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.comTo unsubscribe, go to http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.comand follow the instructions there.

R(

Richard (Rick) Karlquist

Mon, Oct 1, 2018 6:24 PM

On 10/1/2018 9:01 AM, ew via time-nuts wrote:

I made a mistake in the previous post we use the ICS 570 with very good results in many applications. So it was easy to test. This has to be the easiest and lowest cost circuit. Start with an AC14 ST, followed by a divide by 5. I used part of a HC390 but a LS 90 will do. Take the 2 MHz output feed the input of the 570 and select 16X out comes 32 and 16 MHz. Material cost less than $ 5 regulator included.
Bert Kehren

The big advantage of the ICS570 vs 99% of the other solutions
is that it does not require a microcontroller to baby sit it.
For a quick and easy solution, that aspect trumps everything
else.

At least for me. I took 1 course in Fortran 50 years ago,
and that was the extent of my software education.
During my whole career, I have too busy being well
paid to design hardware, to have any time left over to
learn software. After Fortran was over, there was the Pascal
fad, then the C fad, etc, now I guess Python is the latest.
Never got involved in any of that.

Rick N6RK

On 10/1/2018 9:01 AM, ew via time-nuts wrote: > I made a mistake in the previous post we use the ICS 570 with very good results in many applications. So it was easy to test. This has to be the easiest and lowest cost circuit. Start with an AC14 ST, followed by a divide by 5. I used part of a HC390 but a LS 90 will do. Take the 2 MHz output feed the input of the 570 and select 16X out comes 32 and 16 MHz. Material cost less than $ 5 regulator included. > Bert Kehren The big advantage of the ICS570 vs 99% of the other solutions is that it does not require a microcontroller to baby sit it. For a quick and easy solution, that aspect trumps everything else. At least for me. I took 1 course in Fortran 50 years ago, and that was the extent of my software education. During my whole career, I have too busy being well paid to design hardware, to have any time left over to learn software. After Fortran was over, there was the Pascal fad, then the C fad, etc, now I guess Python is the latest. Never got involved in any of that. Rick N6RK

BK

Bob kb8tq

Mon, Oct 1, 2018 7:40 PM

Hi

If the device is attaching to a micro controller (as in the original request), feeding it a few
bits to get it set up may not add any parts at all. No, that’s not a certainty, but it usually
is a pretty good guess. Most micro’s these days will start up on an internal clock source so
even the “what to use at time zero” issue is taken care of.

Bob

On Oct 1, 2018, at 1:24 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist richard@karlquist.com wrote:

On 10/1/2018 9:01 AM, ew via time-nuts wrote:

I made a mistake in the previous post we use the ICS 570 with very good results in many applications. So it was easy to test. This has to be the easiest and lowest cost circuit. Start with an AC14 ST, followed by a divide by 5. I used part of a HC390 but a LS 90 will do. Take the 2 MHz output feed the input of the 570 and select 16X out comes 32 and 16 MHz. Material cost less than $ 5 regulator included.
Bert Kehren

The big advantage of the ICS570 vs 99% of the other solutions
is that it does not require a microcontroller to baby sit it.
For a quick and easy solution, that aspect trumps everything
else.

At least for me. I took 1 course in Fortran 50 years ago,
and that was the extent of my software education.
During my whole career, I have too busy being well
paid to design hardware, to have any time left over to
learn software. After Fortran was over, there was the Pascal
fad, then the C fad, etc, now I guess Python is the latest.
Never got involved in any of that.

Rick N6RK

time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
and follow the instructions there.

Hi If the device is attaching to a micro controller (as in the original request), feeding it a few bits to get it set up may not add any parts at all. No, that’s not a certainty, but it usually is a pretty good guess. Most micro’s these days will start up on an internal clock source so even the “what to use at time zero” issue is taken care of. Bob > On Oct 1, 2018, at 1:24 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist <richard@karlquist.com> wrote: > > > > On 10/1/2018 9:01 AM, ew via time-nuts wrote: >> I made a mistake in the previous post we use the ICS 570 with very good results in many applications. So it was easy to test. This has to be the easiest and lowest cost circuit. Start with an AC14 ST, followed by a divide by 5. I used part of a HC390 but a LS 90 will do. Take the 2 MHz output feed the input of the 570 and select 16X out comes 32 and 16 MHz. Material cost less than $ 5 regulator included. >> Bert Kehren > > The big advantage of the ICS570 vs 99% of the other solutions > is that it does not require a microcontroller to baby sit it. > For a quick and easy solution, that aspect trumps everything > else. > > At least for me. I took 1 course in Fortran 50 years ago, > and that was the extent of my software education. > During my whole career, I have too busy being well > paid to design hardware, to have any time left over to > learn software. After Fortran was over, there was the Pascal > fad, then the C fad, etc, now I guess Python is the latest. > Never got involved in any of that. > > Rick N6RK > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com > and follow the instructions there.

DG

David G. McGaw

Tue, Oct 2, 2018 9:59 PM

Another chip to suggest that I have used is the Texas Instruments
CDCE913 (and family). Wide range of input and output frequencies. If
you have a programmer, it has on-board EEPROM. Otherwise, it programs
through I2S.

David N1HAC

On 10/1/18 3:40 PM, Bob kb8tq wrote:

Hi

If the device is attaching to a micro controller (as in the original request), feeding it a few
bits to get it set up may not add any parts at all. No, that’s not a certainty, but it usually
is a pretty good guess. Most micro’s these days will start up on an internal clock source so
even the “what to use at time zero” issue is taken care of.

Bob

On Oct 1, 2018, at 1:24 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist richard@karlquist.com wrote:

On 10/1/2018 9:01 AM, ew via time-nuts wrote:

I made a mistake in the previous post we use the ICS 570 with very good results in many applications. So it was easy to test. This has to be the easiest and lowest cost circuit. Start with an AC14 ST, followed by a divide by 5. I used part of a HC390 but a LS 90 will do. Take the 2 MHz output feed the input of the 570 and select 16X out comes 32 and 16 MHz. Material cost less than $ 5 regulator included.
Bert Kehren

The big advantage of the ICS570 vs 99% of the other solutions
is that it does not require a microcontroller to baby sit it.
For a quick and easy solution, that aspect trumps everything
else.

At least for me. I took 1 course in Fortran 50 years ago,
and that was the extent of my software education.
During my whole career, I have too busy being well
paid to design hardware, to have any time left over to
learn software. After Fortran was over, there was the Pascal
fad, then the C fad, etc, now I guess Python is the latest.
Never got involved in any of that.

Rick N6RK

time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.febo.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftime-nuts_lists.febo.com&data=02%7C01%7Cdavid.g.mcgaw%40dartmouth.edu%7Cdd8773a2d0bf447d259d08d627d5f941%7C995b093648d640e5a31ebf689ec9446f%7C0%7C0%7C636740197299225977&sdata=%2B4OEPeH0L9k%2B2AFM2cQkraxnw01NeDYiX79ZSyCGg1w%3D&reserved=0
and follow the instructions there.

Another chip to suggest that I have used is the Texas Instruments CDCE913 (and family). Wide range of input and output frequencies. If you have a programmer, it has on-board EEPROM. Otherwise, it programs through I2S. David N1HAC On 10/1/18 3:40 PM, Bob kb8tq wrote: > Hi > > If the device is attaching to a micro controller (as in the original request), feeding it a few > bits to get it set up may not add any parts at all. No, that’s not a certainty, but it usually > is a pretty good guess. Most micro’s these days will start up on an internal clock source so > even the “what to use at time zero” issue is taken care of. > > Bob > >> On Oct 1, 2018, at 1:24 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist <richard@karlquist.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10/1/2018 9:01 AM, ew via time-nuts wrote: >>> I made a mistake in the previous post we use the ICS 570 with very good results in many applications. So it was easy to test. This has to be the easiest and lowest cost circuit. Start with an AC14 ST, followed by a divide by 5. I used part of a HC390 but a LS 90 will do. Take the 2 MHz output feed the input of the 570 and select 16X out comes 32 and 16 MHz. Material cost less than $ 5 regulator included. >>> Bert Kehren >> The big advantage of the ICS570 vs 99% of the other solutions >> is that it does not require a microcontroller to baby sit it. >> For a quick and easy solution, that aspect trumps everything >> else. >> >> At least for me. I took 1 course in Fortran 50 years ago, >> and that was the extent of my software education. >> During my whole career, I have too busy being well >> paid to design hardware, to have any time left over to >> learn software. After Fortran was over, there was the Pascal >> fad, then the C fad, etc, now I guess Python is the latest. >> Never got involved in any of that. >> >> Rick N6RK >> >> _______________________________________________ >> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com >> To unsubscribe, go to https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.febo.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftime-nuts_lists.febo.com&data=02%7C01%7Cdavid.g.mcgaw%40dartmouth.edu%7Cdd8773a2d0bf447d259d08d627d5f941%7C995b093648d640e5a31ebf689ec9446f%7C0%7C0%7C636740197299225977&sdata=%2B4OEPeH0L9k%2B2AFM2cQkraxnw01NeDYiX79ZSyCGg1w%3D&reserved=0 >> and follow the instructions there. > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.febo.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftime-nuts_lists.febo.com&data=02%7C01%7Cdavid.g.mcgaw%40dartmouth.edu%7Cdd8773a2d0bf447d259d08d627d5f941%7C995b093648d640e5a31ebf689ec9446f%7C0%7C0%7C636740197299225977&sdata=%2B4OEPeH0L9k%2B2AFM2cQkraxnw01NeDYiX79ZSyCGg1w%3D&reserved=0 > and follow the instructions there.

time-nuts@lists.febo.com

Re: [time-nuts] 10 MHz -> 16 MHz