[time-nuts] OT: xtal osc PN

francesco messineo francesco.messineo at gmail.com
Sat Sep 18 12:41:00 UTC 2010

First of all, thanks to John and Magnus for inputs and links, makes a
very good start!

On 9/18/10, Magnus Danielson <magnus at rubidium.dyndns.org> wrote:
> On 09/18/2010 09:48 AM, francesco messineo wrote:
>> Hello all,
>> sorry for the OT, but the electronic expertise of the group is too good
>> :-)
>> I'm looking for ideas and directions (articles and so on) to realize
>> very good phase noise xtal oscillator, in the range 20-50 MHz for high
>> performance frequency conversion. I would like to understand what
>> circuits can be realized (not requiring too much professional and
>> modern equipment, test eq. from the 70s-80s is ok) and what is the
>> contribution of the active oscillator device, the xtal itself and the
>> following buffers.
>> Another idea that came on my mind was using digital oscillator (square
>> wave, cmos) and then filtering for sine output, if this makes sense
>> for a low PN point of view.
>> Is there any way to measure the close-in PN of oscillators with an
>> amateur setup?
> First of all I think you need to quantify what you mean by "high
> performance frequency conversion" and what stability measures you are
> seeking as there are many degrees of excessiveness to attempt, and many
> of them may be well beyond what you need. Remember, we are time-nuts... :)

Ok, let's say as good as practically and economically feasible for
"single" prototype and homebuilder. I already chosed not to use a
Si570 because I really need only few (2-4) fixed frequencies and I'm
assuming that carefully made xtal oscillators can beat the Si570 phase
noise performance.
The conversion is obviously for a receiver, not for  the classic HF
bands, but  for the lower VHF amateur bands (50-70 MHz) where IMD3
performance of the receiver has to be the best possible, as these
bands are used for TV and radio broadcasts in many nearby countries
around here.
Of course a very good frontend BPF, amplifier and mixer are needed,
but these are less of a problem for me to chose (and are simpler to
evaluate with "standard" test equipment too).
Unfortunately I know very few  low-VHF-nuts and very few of them (if
any) realize their setup performance are so far distant from what can
be achieved nowadays.

Thanks again

Frank  IZ8DWF

More information about the time-nuts mailing list