[time-nuts] Testing the TAC, and a question about ADEV

Fabio Eboli FabioEb at quipo.it
Fri Dec 28 19:33:49 UTC 2012


Bruce, Bob, now I have more questions
than before :)

First and most important:
Where can I find references about the
statistical method you mentioned?
I tried to search online but didnt't find
any info.

What do you think about the simple setup
I mentioned before (the 2 Rb osc)?
If I set accurately the frequency difference
(easy with a scope and a timer) I will know
the cycle-by-cycle pulse increment
(or reduction).
Was the jitter estimation I made
for the single Rb correct?

Fabio.

P.S. The micro's adc is charachterized
for total unadjusted error of +-2LSB Max
at 25°C, 12bit total.
It's s-h is 8pF with 1kohm in series,
probably I can sync the sampling to
open just before the pulse, and close
after the fact.

Il 2012-12-28 19:53 Bruce Griffiths ha scritto:
> One potential source of non monotonicity is the ADC particularly
> those embedded in a microprocessor.
> The only cure being to either use an external ADC that is monotonic
> or truncate the ADC result until it's monotonic.
>
> Varying the synchroniser clock frequency (a 2:1 range  should suffice
> to cover the range of interest) should allow non monotonic behaviour
> to be detected.
> Otherwise one has to resort to using calibrated delay lines.
>
> Bruce
>
> Bob Camp wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> The statistical fill approach is a cute way to go. The gotcha comes 
>> in when you have a structure that *may* not be monotonic.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> On Dec 28, 2012, at 1:04 PM, Bruce 
>> Griffiths<bruce.griffiths at xtra.co.nz>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Fabio Eboli wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello
>>>>
>>>> How could I test the time to analog converter
>>>> we talked few posts ago?
>>>> Something that can be done with things I have
>>>> or can easily find.
>>>>
>>> One method is to use a statistical fill the buckets technique to 
>>> measure the linearity.
>>> To do this one needs to use an incoherent source to trigger the 
>>> interpolator and plot a histogram of the results.
>>> A noisy RC oscillator would be useful for this but care should be 
>>> taken to avoid injection locking.
>>> To achieve useful measurement in a reasonable time interval a 
>>> trigger rate somewhat greater than 1Hz is required.
>>> If the interpolator has 1024 time delay bins then ~ 100,000 trigger 
>>> events are required to achieve a bin width measurement error of 10%.
>>>
>>> Otherwise a series of measurements of a set of accurately known 
>>> delays is required.
>>> Useful results can be produced by measuring the delay between 
>>> various outputs of a shift register clocked at a sequence of 
>>> different measured frequencies.
>>>
>>>> I was thinking that would be nice to try to
>>>> feed it with signals similar to the real ones,
>>>> but that can be controlled: PPS + 10MHz reference,
>>>> without the PPS tipical jitter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> One should characterise the interpolator linearity etc first.
>>>
>>>> To do so I was thinking to use the PPS from
>>>> one of the 2 FE5680 and the 10MHz from the
>>>> second ad use these to simulate the real signals.
>>>>
>>>> I can tune the frequency of the Rb with the
>>>> serial interface (tested and working).
>>>> I'd like to verify both the resolution and
>>>> repeteability.
>>>>
>>>> I was trying to figure the approx jitter
>>>> I will have using the Rb like I said above,
>>>> so I'm giving an eye to this diagram from
>>>> John Miles page: http://www.ke5fx.com/rb.htm
>>>>
>>>> If I'm understanding correctly, that 5680
>>>> at 1s should have most of the jitter (95% +-2sigma)
>>>> into an interval +- 3.08x10^-11 wide, i.e. about 62pS
>>>> on the PPS signal (non considering the PPS buffer
>>>> inside the 5680). Is this how it work, or I'm mistaking?
>>>> This is from only one unit, but both unit will have
>>>> the jitter, how to take into account the jitter
>>>> from both?
>>>>
>>>> Is there a better method to make this test?
>>>> I could try to test the TAC alone feeding it
>>>> with a 100 to 200nS pulse, but I dont know
>>>> from where to start to generate a clean stable
>>>> and repeteable pulse.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You dont need one (see above) as long as you have the means to 
>>> accumulate the results of 100,000 measurements or preferably more.
>>>
>>>> I have the 2 5680, the counter with it's 10MHz
>>>> inputs and outpus, and a Vectron OCXO that came
>>>> with one of the 5680, with these markings:
>>>> OCXO500-18 63.897600MHz
>>>> 34537 A0715
>>>> and...
>>>> soldering iron, solder and scrap electronics :)
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Fabio.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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