[time-nuts] time-nuts Frequency Divider
EWKehren at aol.com
EWKehren at aol.com
Sat Apr 4 20:51:46 UTC 2009
Bruce, thank you for the info. I have never had the need or desire to get 1
ps accuracy however in designing low noise signal sources I have always had to
battle reference oscillator noise and was often nor sure if it was the
oscillator or the input circuit. However I would like to see a recommendation as
to an attainable design. Thanks again Bert
In a message dated 4/4/2009 4:35:09 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
bruce.griffiths at xtra.co.nz writes:
Bert
Neither the HP5370 nor the SR620 have low enough internal jitter to
accurately characterise the intrinisic output jitter of either a 74HC04
(~4ps) or a 74AC04 (~1ps).
Rather than just tossing together a divider from various parts though to
produce an output with low jitter its better to be able to characterise
the jitter properties (intrinsic as well as that due to logic device
input noise with a finite input signal slew rate) of various logic
families.
It is then possible to actually design a sine to logic level converter
that achieves the lowest possible output jitter for a given complexity
and specified input frequency and amplitude.
The real problem is that one needs to accurately measure jitter of 1ps
or so.
There are few time interval counters that allow this.
One can also measure the change in noise floor when such a device is
placed in the clock input path of a high frequency ADC and thence derive
the jitter.
In principle, the output jitter of a divider can also be calculated from
the phase noise spectrum of its output.
Bruce
EWKehren at aol.com wrote:
> Having built eight of Brooks units, my experience was that the problem was
> not with the amplifier but the way the RS F/F in the phase comparator II
was
> working in some of the devices. For me they all worked in the oscillator
input
> but some brands did not work properly with the GPS input. With all the
dialog
> on the divider subject, is it not time to develop one design that
combines
> KISS and all the collective know how? Bert Kehren WB5MZJ
>
>
> In a message dated 4/3/2009 5:17:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> bruce.griffiths at xtra.co.nz writes:
>
> Correction:
>
> I forgot to include the intrinsic jitter of the gate in the calculations.
> See underlined corrections below.
>
>
> Bruce
>
> Bruce Griffiths wrote:
>
>
>
>> Magnus
>>
>> The input noise of a logic inverter or other trigger device used as a
>> clock shaper is important.
>> If we have a logic inverter device with the following characteristics:
>>
>> Input noise: 100uV rms
>> Intrinsic jitter: 1ps rms
>>
>> Then the input signal slew rate at the threshold crossing has to be
>> greater than
>>
>> 3x1E-4/1E-12 = 3E8 V/s or 300 V/us
>>
>> to ensure that the output jitter isnt increased by more than 5% from the
>> intrinsic jitter.
>>
>> With a 1.4V pk 10MHz sinewave input the maximum slew rate is ~89V/us (at
>> the zero crossing).
>> For such an input signal the output jitter will be about _1.5 ps_.
>> This increases to about _1.72ps_ if there is a threshold offset of 1V.
>> This can be reduced to about 1.05ps by amplifying the slope of the input
>> signal by ~ 3.4x.
>>
>> The intrinsic jitter (RJ. DDJ isn't important when the input signal is a
>> low distortion sinewave) of a 74AC04 inverter is about 1ps.
>> However the equivalent input noise is unknown.
>> The noise could, in principle, be determined by measuring the output
>> jitter as a function of the input signal slew rate.
>>
>> Whilst AM and other noise associated with the source can be reduced by
>> filtering, the input noise of a trigger circuit cannot (except perhaps
>> for the trigger circuits input current noise).
>>
>> Magnus Danielson wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Bruce Griffiths skrev:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Ulrich
>>>>
>>>> Your experience with the SR620 illustrates the point I was making
quite
>>>> well.
>>>> It really does matter what you do in front of the limiter circuit built
>>>> into the counter.
>>>> A bandpass or any other filter by itself is ineffective unless the
>>>> signal is exceptionally noisy.
>>>>
>>>> By using the inverter in the 74HCT4046 you have added a low gain
limiter
>>>> stage the bandwidth of which is smaller than that of the SR620 input
>>>> circuit.
>>>> This has the effect of increasing the slew rate of the input signal
>>>> whilst producing an output with less jitter than the SR620 input
circuit
>>>> would without this low pass filtered limiter circuit (the inverter from
>>>> the 74HCT4046). The slew rate at the 74HCT4046 inverter output is
>>>> greater than that of the input signal which means that the jitter due
>>>> the counter input circuit noise is smaller than when this low gain low
>>>> bandwidth limiter isn't used.
>>>> The input circuit of the SR620 has a wide noise bandwidth (~ 470MHz
>>>> assuming a single pole response with a 300MHz 3dB high frequency
cutoff)
>>>> and a correspondingly high total input noise (~350uV rms).
>>>> If the slew rate of the SR 620 input signal at the trigger point the
>>>> jitter due to this noise dominates the trigger circuit output jitter.
>>>> The HP5370 time interval counter input circuit has a lower noise
>>>> bandwidth (~160MHz??) and is quieter (~ 100uV rms) than the input
>>>> circuit of the SR620 and thus the HP5370 jitter (without the 74HCT4046
>>>> limiter) for the same 10MHz signal should be less than that of the
SR620
>>>> (without the 74HCT4046 limiter).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> As a curiosity, there are various variants of the original 4046 which
>>> has different sensitivity on the input side... one of them has several
>>> inverters in a row to get the needed gain where as the other variant
>>> does not. This difference made a huge difference in some applications.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> The appropriate device (one that will have the least output jitter) to
>> use will vary with the input signal zero crossing slew rate.
>> That is it depends on both the input signal frequency and amplitude.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> If one uses a state of the art trigger circuit with a noise bandwidth
of
>>>> 1GHz or more then the total input noise will be even larger so it
>>>> becomes even more important to use an optimised cascade of limiter+ low
>>>> output pass filter stages to increase the slew rate of the counter
>>>> input trigger circuit at the trigger threshold.
>>>> Careful optimisation of the gain of each stage and the corresponding
>>>> output filter cutoff frequency for each stage is necessary to minimise
>>>> the output jitter of the counter trigger circuit.
>>>> There is also an optimum number of such stages that minimises the
>>>> trigger jitter.
>>>>
>>>> The optimisation problem for Limiter stages with gaussian wideband
input
>>>> noise was solved in the 1990's.
>>>> Unfortunately the optimum number of stages, associated gains and output
>>>> filter bandwidths depends on the input signal frequency and amplitude
so
>>>> that in general it isn't possible to use the same limiter cascade for a
>>>> wide range of signal amplitudes and frequencies and minimise the jitter
>>>> for each frequency and amplitude.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Actually, you can make a cascade setup which is approaching optimum and
>>> insert signal at the stage where the signals slewrate matches the range
>>> for each stage. Since the gain steps is larger later in a slew rate
>>> amplifier chain, the last stages may have a little coarse slew rate
>>> range, but additional mid-range amplifiers that can act as alternative
>>> input amps could curcumvent that such that a wide range but and fairly
>>> good trigger jitter could be achieved.
>>>
>>> The comparator level is fed to whatever stage is the first stage.
>>>
>>> Such an approach could lead to much improved jitter values for lower
>>> frequency signals with associated gain in measurement accuracy.
>>>
>>> It is easy to make a pre-amplifier set that achieves this, but you want
>>> to integrate the control algorithms for automatic use.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> That would constitute an interesting design challenge.
>>
>>
>>>> Thus such circuits aren't usually employed in general purpose
frequency
>>>>
> counters.
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Certainly true. A generic counter is usually equipped with triggers
such
>>> that they can measure slewrate without too much difficulty.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> However if the input signal frequency and amplitude are known and
stable
>>>> then using such a limiter filter cascade is feasible.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Magnus
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Bruce
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
> **************Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a
> recession.
>
(http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare00000003)
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
_______________________________________________
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.
**************Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a
recession.
(http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare00000003)
More information about the time-nuts
mailing list