[time-nuts] Bye-Bye Crystals

Bob Camp kb8tq at n1k.org
Tue Mar 14 11:05:27 EDT 2017


> On Mar 14, 2017, at 8:49 AM, jimlux <jimlux at earthlink.net> wrote:
> On 3/14/17 5:04 AM, Bob Camp wrote:
>> Hi
>>> The cost difference between a complete oscillator package and a simple
>>> crystal is tiny.  The osc is often cheaper if you include board space or
>>> engineering time.
>> Purchased in volume, the difference it the price of a crystal vs a complete XO
>> is enormous. You will see at least a 10:1 cost savings on the crystal and likely
>> more than that.  Simply attaching a crystal to the internal oscillator inside a
>> chip is nearly zero engineering cost.  If your product is cost sensitive and
>> not super tight tolerance … you go with the crystal.
> And that crystal business (gazillions of inexpensive 16 MHz crystals) is very different from making an approximately 12 MHz crystal used in a VCXO that will be FMed and multiplied up by 36 to make a 430 MHz transmitter, oh, and that matches whatever temperature compensation scheme GE used in 1970.

Well, what GE did in 1970 was to test every single assembly over temperature (multiple times)  
and pick parts for that specific assembly to compensate it. There never was a magic single crystal 
design to match the compensation in a given unit ….


> _______________________________________________
> 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