[time-nuts] FE-5650A option 58 tuning word for 10 MHz output

wb6bnq wb6bnq at cox.net
Mon Jan 9 04:48:26 EST 2017

Hi Matt,

Well, after rereading Mark’s paragraph in question, I think he did not 
properly develop his complete thoughts.  The first statement about the 
Hydrogen Maser is absolute.  The second statement is the one that is 
really vague.  The third statement is the clue taken with the fact that 
the first sentence states the purpose of being used as a general purpose 
programmable frequency synthesizer.

So the answer is leaving the C-field pot untouched and taking the 
difference between the “R” value and the “needed” input frequency 
associated with the current “F” value to produce the original output 
frequency gives a correction term to be applied to the “R” value to 
produce the value you use to come up with the new “F” value used for 
determining the wanted output signal.

{After thought sentence} The above is not all that clear either, oh 
well.  Read on it becomes clearer.

So lets go through the process and see if I can do this without screwing 
up.  The formula for the DDS chip to produce a desired output for a 
given system clock frequency is the following :

FTW (in decimal) = (Desired Output Frequency x 2^n) / SYSCLK

However, the need is to determine what the proper input frequency is to 
produce the 8388608 Hz with the given “F” value as the FTW (Frequency 
Tuning Word).  So the formula is the following:

SYSCLK = (Desired Output Frequency x 2^n) / FTW (in decimal)

In your reported numbers this produces :
first 2^32 = 4,294,967,296 times desired output of 8,388,608 Hz = 

                         SYSCLK = (Desired Output Frequency x 2^n) / FTW 
(in decimal)
50,255,055.809934059845495428970822 Hz = 36,028,797,018,963,968 / 716918854

So the above 50 MHz number (SYSCLK) is the result of adjusting the 
C-field so the unit is “ON” frequency for the expected 1 Hz output from 
the factory.  This is the SYSCLK value that should be used to find the 
new “F” value for the DDS upon selecting a new output frequency such as 
10 MHz (or as close as possible without touching the C-field) if that is 
your wanted output value.

Actually, now that I have done the exercise, computing the delta between 
the “R” value and the above 50 MHz makes no sense and serves no 
purpose.  I cannot stress enough.  This is all predicated on not 
touching the C-field adjustment and assuming the 1 Hz signal is 
precisely on frequency.

This method does not give a lot of confidence as to preciseness.  The 
real value in these Rb units is they have a much lower drift rate than a 
reasonably good quality Quartz oscillator.  Typically less then parts in 
10 to the minus 10th or minus 11th per month.


Mathias Weyland wrote:

> On 2017-01-04 10:16, wb6bnq wrote:
> Hello Bill
> Thanks for re-iterating over this.
>>  Yes, I do think the outer can covering is a MU-metal shield.  The
>> bottom plate where the connector is located is not.
> That is reassuring thank you!
>>  I know the calculator that comes with Windows XP will produce the
>> correct mathematical results.  I think the Windows version 7 does the
>> same.  I do not have Windows 10 and therefore cannot address that
>> one, if there is one.  Even EXCEL spreadsheet does not do the job
>> properly.  So use caution with your calculations.
> OK noted. The original calculations were done with a calculator that
> was designed for high precision (in the floating point sense). I did
> re-run the calculations in windows calculator for kicks, and the
> result is different, although the difference is too small to have an
> effect on the integer phase accumulator increment (fingers crossed!)
>>  However, with all that said, it means nothing if you cannot properly
>> measure the final value against an external standard of greater
>> accuracy.  Acquiring the equipment to do the external measurements is
>> where the real cost comes in.
> Yes, I think that I am aware of that and I have the opportunity to
> do that with somebody else's gear. I also understand that I'm supposed
> to do that on a regular basis.
>>  Hopefully the above helps to clear up your query ?
> Yes most of it is clear, thank you. Unfortunately though my original
> question, i.e. how to incorporate the reported R value into the
> calculation, is still kind of open. I'm still convinced that what I
> did, i.e. not taking the R number into account, is no worse than
> using it. But this might be incorrect, and if it is I'd like to know
> why.
> Regards and thanks again
> Matt
> _______________________________________________
> 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