[time-nuts] Is oscillator sync always bad?
Predrag Dukic
stijena at tapko.de
Thu Dec 18 21:29:37 UTC 2008
Bruce,
these articles are more or less the answer to my question.
In principle, there is obviously reduction in noise, and the main
concerns are uncoupled frequency difference and phase.
Thanks,
Predrag
At 21:48 18.12.2008, you wrote:
>Pedrag
>
>You may want to look at:
>
>http://my.ece.ucsb.edu/yorklab/Publications/BioBib/84%20-%20MTT%20May%201997%20Phase%20Noise.pdf
>
>http://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2433/49985/1/PhysRevLett_98_184101.pdf
>
>to get some idea of the complexities involved in such a scheme if you
>intend to reduce the phase noise of an ensemble of mutually coupled
>oscillators.
>
>Bruce
>
>Rick Karlquist wrote:
> > Some of Len Cutler's engineers at HP attempted to build
> > an ensemble of nine 10811 oscillators. It was quite
> > non-trivial and I'm not sure they ever completed
> > the project. I doubt whether just letting 10811's
> > self synchronize would result in satisfactory performance.
> >
> > Rick Karlquist N6RK
> >
> >
> > Predrag Dukic wrote:
> >
> >> Hi, Time -Nuts,
> >>
> >> Did anyone try to deliberately allow syncronisation of two
> >> oscillators, by , for example paralleling outputs of two 10811.
> >>
> >> I expect to see some benefits from the usual statistics: Phase
> >> noise divided by sqrt of 2 and also decreased amplitude random
> >> frequency jumps.
> >>
> >> Aging could also be average of the two.....
> >>
> >> Predrag Dukic
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
>To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>and follow the instructions there.
More information about the time-nuts
mailing list