PLL tricks

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 21:23:48 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
<ExtractkevinRemove@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

"John Larkin" wrote in message
news:120p1a1o20l3o1q4htcib1k38v8s1isno5@4ax.com...

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 19:45:56 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
ExtractkevinRemove@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

"Phil Hobbs" wrote in message news:54138195.8000608@electrooptical.net...


Granted, in your situation.

More often I'm trying to solve novel problems. A long time ago, it was
making clean BPSK SS UHF cheaply from a cheap crystal, at micropower,
fast-settling, with a lot of other constraints. There simply isn't an
equation that outputs a novel topology.

Quite so. OTOH calculating the fundamental limits as a function of the
crystal Q and transistor noise can be pretty illuminating. A few years
ago
when I was building stabilized lasers for downhole applications, I had to
go into a lot of that stuff, and learned a lot. (Leeson's equation for
oscillator noise is sort of the electronic analogue of the Schawlow-Townes
minimum line width of a laser.)

Leesons equation is only qualitatively, useful. Its F is unknown, so its
useless to actually calculate LF PN noise from.

If you can't calculate how good it _could_ be, how do you know when you're
done? It's a pity to declare victory and leave, when there's another 20
dB
available with affordable devices.

In fact, you can't calculate PN manually in practice, for real systems. The
equations are way too intractable. The only realistic way to design for low
phase noise is to use a phase noise simulation tools, e.g. Cadence RF or
Agilent.

I have paper on my site by A. Demir
(http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/phasenoise/phasenoise.html) which
irrefutably shows that techniques such as the Hajimiri-Lee ISF approach is
toilet paper.

The idea of using pen and paper to try and calculate closed form solutions
to todays problems is dead. It is a fact that the percentage of systems
with
closed form solutions compared to systems without, is the limit as x->0.

Its a paradigm shift to understand that using simulation tools to get the
answers is the best way and only way. I can an answer and gain real
understanding of a problem in minutes compared to pissing about with a
pencil and pad for months.


There is still, I think, an academic-leftover prejudice for equations.

Yes. Its job security. What would they do if they did not produce equations
10 lines long.

It took me a while to eliminate my own prejudice. I once spent an inordinate
amount of time learning all sorts of ways to solve differentia equations.

In a practical, complex, nonlinear system, the math may be
enlightening but not practical for quantitative solutions.

Enlightening sometimes, often one cant see the forest because the trees are
in the way. The equations are usually unmanageable. Middlebrook appreciated
and stressed this, illustrated by his reduced element theorem. He didn't go
far enough.

Simulation can be enlightening, too.

Very enlightening. Regarding phase noise, bench work simply can not compete
with the tests you can do in the virtual world. e.g. the sims spit out the
value of each contributing noise noise value, in order.

But then, some physical systems aren't well suited to simulation either, so
people still breadboard.

Yes. Simulation only works when the individual models accurately reflect
reality, and correct theory expressed in a numerical solvable equations
exist. The reverse/forward recovery diode thread shows that there are still
areas lacking.

The other place simulation fails is when the sim would have to run for
days or years to produce an accurate result. Like a 2-minute event
simulated at 10 fs time steps. Or something that #$%^& LT Spice
refuses to converge on.

Don't get me wrong, some things, like filter design, are crazy to do
by simulation or experiment. Ditto things that involve real physics
fundamentals.

The diode recovery thing is not suited to math analysis, because we
don't know stuff like doping profiles of diodes that we can buy, and
Spice doesn't handle diffusion anyhow. We may as well use a behavioral
model based on part measurement, limited to modeling the behavior that
happens to matter right now. The textbooks tell us what sorts of
general behaviors we can expect in diodes.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 18:15:11 -0500, ChesterW <iamsnoozin@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On 9/19/14, 4:21 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 15:32:07 -0500, ChesterW <iamsnoozin@yahoo.com
wrote:

On 9/16/14, 10:27 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 00:21:44 -0500, ChesterW <iamsnoozin@yahoo.com
wrote:

On 9/15/14, 4:55 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
snip



*----------------<----------------------------------------*
| |
VCXO *-----* *-----* *-------* |
155.52 MHz ->-- /1944 ->-|D Q|------|D Q|---| LOOP |----*
| | | | | |FILTER |
V *--^--* *--^--* *-------*
| | |
*------->-------* *---<----10MHz REF
Resynch B-B phase det

With maybe a second DFF stage between the phase detector and the loop
filter, to get rid of any noise caused by metastability.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

It's elegant, but it seems counter-intuitive that the rather tough specs
can be met when throwing away over 99% of the phase comparison
information (1-1/125).

ChesterW

For a constant loop bandwidth, you should get some noise averaging by
doing the phase comparison faster, I agree. However, since you have to
crank down the BW to filter out the gross amounts of ripple from a
bang-bang phase detector, I expect that it won't be that different
inside the BW.

Of course, losing all that loop bandwidth does mean that the VCXO has to
be a lot better than it would with a 10 MHz comparison frequency.

Using local feedback, i.e. a DDS-based or fractional-N loop (wide loop
BW but probably fairly horrible drift) inside an 80-kHz bang-bang loop
would relax the requirements on the VCXO proper.

This is all such fun that I may have to try building something like that.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


Yes, John Larkin gets the prize for the most interesting project of the
week. Lucky dog.

Here's a possible idea for evaluating the feasibility of different
schemes. Calculate the entropy of the 155.52 MHz signal. Estimate the
frequency drift of the VCXO and represent it as the number of bits of
information lost per 12.5 us update period. Then the feedback needs to
supply at least this number of bits of information to be a possible
solution. If the required feedback SNR is too high, then you know you
need to use the information from more phase comparisons, not just the
easy 12.5 us ones.


Something like that. We'll probably lay out a nice multilayer proto
board with a few candidate VCXO locations, 10 MHz filters, and
dipswitches and trimpots in the loop lowpass filter to make it easy to
tune. Seed that with SMA connectors for analysis, and experiment. Good
intern sort of project.

Putting a cover over the XO, to keep air currents off it, can reduce
jitter a lot.


This is cool:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Software/PhaseNoise.exe

It was done by one of the s.e.d. guys some time ago; Jeroen? It lets
you convert a phase noise curve to RMS jitter.


Whatever gets results is good. I wonder how intern errors sum. I don't
think it's a half power law, although I suppose it depends on the
intern. Maybe you can hire the re-incarnation of Claude Shannon.

I'm biased toward lots calculation and simulation before building and
fiddling - for complicated systems anyhow. I think it's from working
early in my career without much theory. That was frustrating as hell.

Anyway, I make your 155.52 MHz oscillator with 0.2 ps rms jitter as
containing 15.0 bits of information. When it degrades to 12.7 bits
you're on the edge of your 1 ps error budget. That and how fast it
degrades should set the performance requirements on the feedback loop.

ChesterW


Seems to me that more modulation of a sine wave carries more
information, not less.

Does a perfect sine wave convey an infinite amount of information?



The answer depends on un-supplied details.

In the sense of sending data using a carrier, then more modulation can
mean more information content. It depends on the determinism of the
modulation.

In the sense of sending data using a carrier, then a perfect sine wave
with infinite extent in time conveys zero information.

In the sense of a time reference, a perfect sine wave with zero error
conveys infinite information.

So how about that, the same signal conveys both zero and infinite
information, depending on the question. Reminds me of a story about
imaginary cows that I may post later.

In your oscillator problem I modeled the system as a clock with each
reference tick happening at 1/155.52 MHz. The 0.2 ps rms jitter is the
uncertainty in the time measurement. For these numbers, that's about 1
part in 32k, which requires about 15.0 bits to specify. Since the jitter
is random from cycle to cycle, this represents the maximum precision of
the system which I take as the information content of the (perfectly
aligned) system related to timing.

When the error from sources besides jitter accumulates to your spec of 1
ps, then the system is precise to about 1 part in 6400, or about 12.7
bits. So, when random occurrences cause your system to drift from
perfectly aligned to just out of spec, the time reference has lost about
2.3 bits of information.

So, if you know the drift rate of the timing of the system, then you can
calculate the data loss rate in bits per second. Since bits per second,
bandwidth, and SNR are related in the channel capacity formula, this may
be a tool to evaluate feedback schemes. If the feedback can't supply
enough bps, then it can't control the loop. I think this might set a
necessary but not sufficient condition, which at least may keep you from
wasting time building something that has no chance of working, which of
course is the purpose of analysis in engineering.

ChesterW

Just because you can divide two things that are in the same units, and
convert the result to bits, doesn't mean you should!


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Kevin Aylward]

"John Larkin" wrote in message
news:7eip1al1odp2hfed8c129dbthi6vrrpple@4ax.com...

Don't get me wrong, some things, like filter design, are crazy to do by
simulation or experiment.

In general, I agree that the most practical way to get a filter design is to
use the standard closed form techniques. I have many of them built into
SuperSpice. Press the button and it places the filter on the schematic.

However... I have come across research in evolution genetic algorithms that
have "designed" impressive filters by that select, replicate, random
variation, process. Component connection topologies pop up in the most
unusual configurations.

Modern filter theory came about by the objective of obtaining closed form
solutions to construct filters of arbitrary order, before computers were
available. It turns out, that selecting a topology, then running an
optimiser to get the component values to get a filter response to match a
given frequency/phase profile, will, essentially, always get you a better
match than a standard filter. Standard filters are mainly used for
convenience.

Kevin Aylward
www.kevinaylward.co.uk
www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice

 

[Tom Swift]

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

I scanned Matthys' articles to .PDF, if anyone wants them.
[1] Crystal Oscillator Circuits for VHF, Robert Matthys, RF Designm
May/June 1983 p62 [2] A High-Performance VHF Crystal Oscillator
Circuit, Robert Matthys, RF Design, March 1987, p31-38

I would like copies. Can you upload them to some file host?

Thanks

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 19 Sep 2014 21:58:16 -0700 (PDT)) it happened
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote in
<6eb4d413-9b79-48f5-84f3-d73d93bbc9e8@googlegroups.com>:

Here's a web-accessible example from Wenzel:
http://crovencrystals.com/applications/clockosc.htm

Nice.

Given VCOs with resonators of Q>=70K+, that translates to a crystal 3dB
passband on the order of 2-3KHz @ 155MHz. I'm not immediately sure if
that means 80KHz phase comparisons are enough to keep it on track, but
at least it doesn't look ridiculous...

I mentioned microwave bricks...KE5FX has a schematic for one here:
http://www.ke5fx.com/brick/fwbrick.pdf

Microwaves... If you want a free running oscillator,
then the litte ceramic pucks in the satellite LNBs are 9.something and 10.something GHz,
and have really really low noise.
The little yellowish disks on the right:
http://panteltje.com/pub/5_dollar_LNB_PCB_IMG_3582.GIF

You can bring these down in frequency by mechanical loading, for example by gluing some
parts of a broken one on it.
So mechanical vibrations at 10 GHz, and cheap.
One project on the table here is converting a standard LNB to a transmitter for the 10.5 GHz ham band, DVB-S.
This is done by changing the input and output of the 10 GHz pre-amp so it drives the horn,
and is fed from the (ring diode) mixer.
Very low power that is.
And all is very very low phase noise, even after mixing up with those pucks.
http://www.pi6atv.com/index.php?option=com_docman&task=docclick&Itemid=126&bid=299&limitstart=0&limit=10
From:
http://www.pi6atv.com/content/view/47/108/
Now try to simulate that.

Von Braun went to the moon and back without simulations.
There is a large number of companies that try to sell C++ compilers and simulators and what not,
kids (say students) - are indoctrinated with it.
And where does it go? Not even to the ISS.
Inferior color system in the US, most decisions politically based, if not all.
Bloatware no end, quad cores to read your email.
Side effect of capitalism I guess, production of ever more crap.
It WILL collapse.

And those fusion lasers, chances are same as winning the euromillions.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 20/09/2014 7:58 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 19 Sep 2014 21:58:16 -0700 (PDT)) it happened
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote in
6eb4d413-9b79-48f5-84f3-d73d93bbc9e8@googlegroups.com>:

<snip>

> And those fusion lasers, chances are same as winning the euromillions.

Never the main reason for the set-up - it's actual job, as a opposed to
the PR window-dressing, has always been nuclear weapons testing and
maintenance.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[rickman]

On 9/19/2014 6:23 PM, Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote:

In article <lvg5iv$dbr$1@dont-email.me>, gnuarm@gmail.com says...
As much as I would love to help you, I can't believe the
lack of insight here.

Experienced people can see what the circuit is, even if
there was some minor hand slip in the drawing, which I didn't
see any btw.

Why not just give up beating the dead horse?

If you can't explain such a simple circuit, I think I am not the only
one who had a lack of insight... and a few other qualities.

You can attempt to steer the subject to any direction you wish, but
you'll fail miserably.

The question was reading of the schematic, not understanding
how it works. I understand how it works and there for I saw no
mistakes nor did I see a problem with the drawing.

Trying to move the goal post to blur your lack of understanding isn't
doing much for your image.

I never said I understand the design. In fact I have been asking others
to explain it. Instead I get idiotic replies like this one from people
who are just too dysfunctional to actually be people. I think this
point is clearly illustrated by your compulsion to reply with derisive
comments rather than just not replying at all or, God forbid, offering
some insight into how the circuit actually works.

My previous reply assumed the problem was you didn't understand the
circuit either. I guess maybe that is not true, you just can't bring
yourself to actually be of some assistance to someone.

--

Rick

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 20 Sep 2014 20:42:28 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <lvjlmr$1tj$1@dont-email.me>:

On 20/09/2014 7:58 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 19 Sep 2014 21:58:16 -0700 (PDT)) it happened
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote in
6eb4d413-9b79-48f5-84f3-d73d93bbc9e8@googlegroups.com>:

snip

And those fusion lasers, chances are same as winning the euromillions.

Never the main reason for the set-up - it's actual job, as a opposed to
the PR window-dressing, has always been nuclear weapons testing and
maintenance.

Now I am curious, how do you test nukes by imploding a pellet of ??
with lasers?
US has plenty nukes, some need fresh plutonium I've read..
Maybe some more recent electronics, would make me feel safer.

 

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 12:36:31 GMT, Jan Panteltje <panteltje@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 20 Sep 2014 20:42:28 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <lvjlmr$1tj$1@dont-email.me>:

On 20/09/2014 7:58 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 19 Sep 2014 21:58:16 -0700 (PDT)) it happened
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote in
6eb4d413-9b79-48f5-84f3-d73d93bbc9e8@googlegroups.com>:

snip

And those fusion lasers, chances are same as winning the euromillions.

Never the main reason for the set-up - it's actual job, as a opposed to
the PR window-dressing, has always been nuclear weapons testing and
maintenance.

Now I am curious, how do you test nukes by imploding a pellet of ??
with lasers?
US has plenty nukes, some need fresh plutonium I've read..

"Fresh plutonium"? Perhaps tritium but Pt doesn't go "stale" (in
hundreds of our lifetimes).

Maybe some more recent electronics, would make me feel safer.

Microsoft nukes? Google nukes? They seem to be fine, just as they
are.

 

[Tom Miller]

<krw@attt.bizz> wrote in message
news:v32r1ahl8jg9t0qm3vhgq6ph7ff07deknf@4ax.com...

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 12:36:31 GMT, Jan Panteltje <panteltje@yahoo.com
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 20 Sep 2014 20:42:28 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <lvjlmr$1tj$1@dont-email.me>:

On 20/09/2014 7:58 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 19 Sep 2014 21:58:16 -0700 (PDT)) it happened
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote in
6eb4d413-9b79-48f5-84f3-d73d93bbc9e8@googlegroups.com>:

snip

And those fusion lasers, chances are same as winning the euromillions.

Never the main reason for the set-up - it's actual job, as a opposed to
the PR window-dressing, has always been nuclear weapons testing and
maintenance.

Now I am curious, how do you test nukes by imploding a pellet of ??
with lasers?
US has plenty nukes, some need fresh plutonium I've read..

"Fresh plutonium"? Perhaps tritium but Pt doesn't go "stale" (in
hundreds of our lifetimes).

Maybe some more recent electronics, would make me feel safer.


Microsoft nukes? Google nukes? They seem to be fine, just as they
are.

Brings a new meaning to the "blue screen of death".

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:18:42 -0400) it happened krw@attt.bizz
wrote in <v32r1ahl8jg9t0qm3vhgq6ph7ff07deknf@4ax.com>:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 12:36:31 GMT, Jan Panteltje <panteltje@yahoo.com
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 20 Sep 2014 20:42:28 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <lvjlmr$1tj$1@dont-email.me>:

On 20/09/2014 7:58 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 19 Sep 2014 21:58:16 -0700 (PDT)) it happened
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote in
6eb4d413-9b79-48f5-84f3-d73d93bbc9e8@googlegroups.com>:

snip

And those fusion lasers, chances are same as winning the euromillions.

Never the main reason for the set-up - it's actual job, as a opposed to
the PR window-dressing, has always been nuclear weapons testing and
maintenance.

Now I am curious, how do you test nukes by imploding a pellet of ??
with lasers?
US has plenty nukes, some need fresh plutonium I've read..

"Fresh plutonium"? Perhaps tritium but Pt doesn't go "stale" (in
hundreds of our lifetimes).

Maybe some more recent electronics, would make me feel safer.


Microsoft nukes? Google nukes? They seem to be fine, just as they
are.

It was a deep think remark,
but I ment they would have less chance of working with the new 'tronix'
Da nigga seems to want nuke war with Russia.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:33:44 -0400) it happened "Tom Miller"
<tmiller11147@verizon.net> wrote in <lvk38b$ov7$1@dont-email.me>:

krw@attt.bizz> wrote in message
news:v32r1ahl8jg9t0qm3vhgq6ph7ff07deknf@4ax.com...
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 12:36:31 GMT, Jan Panteltje <panteltje@yahoo.com
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 20 Sep 2014 20:42:28 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <lvjlmr$1tj$1@dont-email.me>:

On 20/09/2014 7:58 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 19 Sep 2014 21:58:16 -0700 (PDT)) it happened
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote in
6eb4d413-9b79-48f5-84f3-d73d93bbc9e8@googlegroups.com>:

snip

And those fusion lasers, chances are same as winning the euromillions.

Never the main reason for the set-up - it's actual job, as a opposed to
the PR window-dressing, has always been nuclear weapons testing and
maintenance.

Now I am curious, how do you test nukes by imploding a pellet of ??
with lasers?
US has plenty nukes, some need fresh plutonium I've read..

"Fresh plutonium"? Perhaps tritium but Pt doesn't go "stale" (in
hundreds of our lifetimes).

Maybe some more recent electronics, would make me feel safer.


Microsoft nukes? Google nukes? They seem to be fine, just as they
are.

Brings a new meaning to the "blue screen of death".

Yep.
They already tested that in some warship a while back. it no longer moved.

 

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 14:37:56 GMT, Jan Panteltje <panteltje@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:18:42 -0400) it happened krw@attt.bizz
wrote in <v32r1ahl8jg9t0qm3vhgq6ph7ff07deknf@4ax.com>:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 12:36:31 GMT, Jan Panteltje <panteltje@yahoo.com
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 20 Sep 2014 20:42:28 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <lvjlmr$1tj$1@dont-email.me>:

On 20/09/2014 7:58 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 19 Sep 2014 21:58:16 -0700 (PDT)) it happened
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote in
6eb4d413-9b79-48f5-84f3-d73d93bbc9e8@googlegroups.com>:

snip

And those fusion lasers, chances are same as winning the euromillions.

Never the main reason for the set-up - it's actual job, as a opposed to
the PR window-dressing, has always been nuclear weapons testing and
maintenance.

Now I am curious, how do you test nukes by imploding a pellet of ??
with lasers?
US has plenty nukes, some need fresh plutonium I've read..

"Fresh plutonium"? Perhaps tritium but Pt doesn't go "stale" (in
hundreds of our lifetimes).

Maybe some more recent electronics, would make me feel safer.


Microsoft nukes? Google nukes? They seem to be fine, just as they
are.

It was a deep think remark,
but I ment they would have less chance of working with the new 'tronix'

Or working when you don't want them to. No, they're just fine as they
are.

>Da nigga seems to want nuke war with Russia.

Skipping the obvious racist remark, he's asking for war with everyone
from Albania to Zimbabwe. That's what weakness does.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:54:25 -0400) it happened krw@attt.bizz
wrote in <u05r1a9cn3c222vmmvovntfpfgdana8unt@4ax.com>:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 14:37:56 GMT, Jan Panteltje <panteltje@yahoo.com
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:18:42 -0400) it happened krw@attt.bizz
wrote in <v32r1ahl8jg9t0qm3vhgq6ph7ff07deknf@4ax.com>:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 12:36:31 GMT, Jan Panteltje <panteltje@yahoo.com
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 20 Sep 2014 20:42:28 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <lvjlmr$1tj$1@dont-email.me>:

On 20/09/2014 7:58 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 19 Sep 2014 21:58:16 -0700 (PDT)) it happened
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote in
6eb4d413-9b79-48f5-84f3-d73d93bbc9e8@googlegroups.com>:

snip

And those fusion lasers, chances are same as winning the euromillions.

Never the main reason for the set-up - it's actual job, as a opposed to
the PR window-dressing, has always been nuclear weapons testing and
maintenance.

Now I am curious, how do you test nukes by imploding a pellet of ??
with lasers?
US has plenty nukes, some need fresh plutonium I've read..

"Fresh plutonium"? Perhaps tritium but Pt doesn't go "stale" (in
hundreds of our lifetimes).

Maybe some more recent electronics, would make me feel safer.


Microsoft nukes? Google nukes? They seem to be fine, just as they
are.

It was a deep think remark,
but I ment they would have less chance of working with the new 'tronix'

Or working when you don't want them to. No, they're just fine as they
are.

Da nigga seems to want nuke war with Russia.

Skipping the obvious racist remark,

Nono, not racist, just trying to cummunicate on the level of his voidters.

he's asking for war with everyone
from Albania to Zimbabwe. That's what weakness does.

Yes the old saying goes:
challenging...
A strong man will ignore you,
a weak man may kill you.

I like this one to:
Do Not Argue With The Man With The Nukes.

But 0banana, like that Clignon before him, wants war in Europe.
that makes the US not exactly my friend.

Putin has a lot of patience with the demonrat club,
I would have glassified Washington,
bas I am weak...

I mean that would benefit both Russia, Europe, and the US.
maybe the far east too!


How come I am into politics all of the sudden...

 

[Joe Gwinn]

In article <lvk3hm$qjn$1@news.datemas.de>, Jan Panteltje
<panteltje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:33:44 -0400) it happened "Tom Miller"
tmiller11147@verizon.net> wrote in <lvk38b$ov7$1@dont-email.me>:


krw@attt.bizz> wrote in message
news:v32r1ahl8jg9t0qm3vhgq6ph7ff07deknf@4ax.com...
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 12:36:31 GMT, Jan Panteltje <panteltje@yahoo.com
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 20 Sep 2014 20:42:28 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <lvjlmr$1tj$1@dont-email.me>:

On 20/09/2014 7:58 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 19 Sep 2014 21:58:16 -0700 (PDT)) it happened
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote in
6eb4d413-9b79-48f5-84f3-d73d93bbc9e8@googlegroups.com>:

snip

And those fusion lasers, chances are same as winning the euromillions.

Never the main reason for the set-up - it's actual job, as a opposed to
the PR window-dressing, has always been nuclear weapons testing and
maintenance.

Now I am curious, how do you test nukes by imploding a pellet of ??
with lasers?
US has plenty nukes, some need fresh plutonium I've read..

"Fresh plutonium"? Perhaps tritium but Pt doesn't go "stale" (in
hundreds of our lifetimes).

Maybe some more recent electronics, would make me feel safer.


Microsoft nukes? Google nukes? They seem to be fine, just as they
are.

Brings a new meaning to the "blue screen of death".

Yep.
They already tested that in some warship a while back. it no longer moved.

The Yorktown, an Aegis Cruiser, about 100 miles off Newport News,
Virginia.

Immediate cause was that somebody in the Engine Room accidentally
entered a zero in a field of a screen about pump performance, causing
Windows NT to crash, and take the network down with it.

No propulsion, steering, sensors, or weapons. They were drifting for a
few hours. Had to reboot the ship.

No damage to ship or crew. But the Captain still wakes up screaming.

The idea of using Windows NT for anything mission-critical and/or
safety-critical died of injuries received in The Yorktown Incident.

Joe Gwinn

..<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Yorktown_%28CG-48%29#Smart_ship_testb
ed>

 

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 11:29:48 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:

In article <lvk3hm$qjn$1@news.datemas.de>, Jan Panteltje
panteltje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:33:44 -0400) it happened "Tom Miller"
tmiller11147@verizon.net> wrote in <lvk38b$ov7$1@dont-email.me>:


krw@attt.bizz> wrote in message
news:v32r1ahl8jg9t0qm3vhgq6ph7ff07deknf@4ax.com...
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 12:36:31 GMT, Jan Panteltje <panteltje@yahoo.com
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 20 Sep 2014 20:42:28 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <lvjlmr$1tj$1@dont-email.me>:

On 20/09/2014 7:58 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 19 Sep 2014 21:58:16 -0700 (PDT)) it happened
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote in
6eb4d413-9b79-48f5-84f3-d73d93bbc9e8@googlegroups.com>:

snip

And those fusion lasers, chances are same as winning the euromillions.

Never the main reason for the set-up - it's actual job, as a opposed to
the PR window-dressing, has always been nuclear weapons testing and
maintenance.

Now I am curious, how do you test nukes by imploding a pellet of ??
with lasers?
US has plenty nukes, some need fresh plutonium I've read..

"Fresh plutonium"? Perhaps tritium but Pt doesn't go "stale" (in
hundreds of our lifetimes).

Maybe some more recent electronics, would make me feel safer.


Microsoft nukes? Google nukes? They seem to be fine, just as they
are.

Brings a new meaning to the "blue screen of death".

Yep.
They already tested that in some warship a while back. it no longer moved.

The Yorktown, an Aegis Cruiser, about 100 miles off Newport News,
Virginia.

Immediate cause was that somebody in the Engine Room accidentally
entered a zero in a field of a screen about pump performance, causing
Windows NT to crash, and take the network down with it.

No propulsion, steering, sensors, or weapons. They were drifting for a
few hours. Had to reboot the ship.

I was on a flight home from Detroit recently, when a similar thing
happened. Just before the pilot pushed back from the gate, there was
an engine warning light. After much consultation with the mechanics,
they did a cold-restart of the airplane. The problem went away, at
least long enough to get me home.

No damage to ship or crew. But the Captain still wakes up screaming.

The idea of using Windows NT for anything mission-critical and/or
safety-critical died of injuries received in The Yorktown Incident.

One only hopes.

 

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 15:19:11 GMT, Jan Panteltje <panteltje@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:54:25 -0400) it happened krw@attt.bizz
wrote in <u05r1a9cn3c222vmmvovntfpfgdana8unt@4ax.com>:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 14:37:56 GMT, Jan Panteltje <panteltje@yahoo.com
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:18:42 -0400) it happened krw@attt.bizz
wrote in <v32r1ahl8jg9t0qm3vhgq6ph7ff07deknf@4ax.com>:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 12:36:31 GMT, Jan Panteltje <panteltje@yahoo.com
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 20 Sep 2014 20:42:28 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <lvjlmr$1tj$1@dont-email.me>:

On 20/09/2014 7:58 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 19 Sep 2014 21:58:16 -0700 (PDT)) it happened
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote in
6eb4d413-9b79-48f5-84f3-d73d93bbc9e8@googlegroups.com>:

snip

And those fusion lasers, chances are same as winning the euromillions.

Never the main reason for the set-up - it's actual job, as a opposed to
the PR window-dressing, has always been nuclear weapons testing and
maintenance.

Now I am curious, how do you test nukes by imploding a pellet of ??
with lasers?
US has plenty nukes, some need fresh plutonium I've read..

"Fresh plutonium"? Perhaps tritium but Pt doesn't go "stale" (in
hundreds of our lifetimes).

Maybe some more recent electronics, would make me feel safer.


Microsoft nukes? Google nukes? They seem to be fine, just as they
are.

It was a deep think remark,
but I ment they would have less chance of working with the new 'tronix'

Or working when you don't want them to. No, they're just fine as they
are.

Da nigga seems to want nuke war with Russia.

Skipping the obvious racist remark,

Nono, not racist, just trying to cummunicate on the level of his voidters.

Yes, racist.

he's asking for war with everyone
from Albania to Zimbabwe. That's what weakness does.

Yes the old saying goes:
challenging...
A strong man will ignore you,
a weak man may kill you.

That didn't work out so well for Chamberlain.

I like this one to:
Do Not Argue With The Man With The Nukes.

Why not, when you know he has no use, or regard, for them?

But 0banana, like that Clignon before him, wants war in Europe.
that makes the US not exactly my friend.

Surprise, surprise. ...and that has nothing to do with Clinton
(either one) or Obama.

Putin has a lot of patience with the demonrat club,
I would have glassified Washington,

Don't do us any favors. Why would Putin want to end all that
confusion?

>bas I am weak...

We can agree on that much.

I mean that would benefit both Russia, Europe, and the US.
maybe the far east too!


How come I am into politics all of the sudden...

All of a sudden? Please!

 

[ChesterW]

On 9/19/14, 7:37 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 18:15:11 -0500, ChesterW <iamsnoozin@yahoo.com
wrote:

On 9/19/14, 4:21 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 15:32:07 -0500, ChesterW <iamsnoozin@yahoo.com
wrote:

On 9/16/14, 10:27 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 00:21:44 -0500, ChesterW <iamsnoozin@yahoo.com
wrote:

On 9/15/14, 4:55 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
snip



*----------------<----------------------------------------*
| |
VCXO *-----* *-----* *-------* |
155.52 MHz ->-- /1944 ->-|D Q|------|D Q|---| LOOP |----*
| | | | | |FILTER |
V *--^--* *--^--* *-------*
| | |
*------->-------* *---<----10MHz REF
Resynch B-B phase det

With maybe a second DFF stage between the phase detector and the loop
filter, to get rid of any noise caused by metastability.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

It's elegant, but it seems counter-intuitive that the rather tough specs
can be met when throwing away over 99% of the phase comparison
information (1-1/125).

ChesterW

For a constant loop bandwidth, you should get some noise averaging by
doing the phase comparison faster, I agree. However, since you have to
crank down the BW to filter out the gross amounts of ripple from a
bang-bang phase detector, I expect that it won't be that different
inside the BW.

Of course, losing all that loop bandwidth does mean that the VCXO has to
be a lot better than it would with a 10 MHz comparison frequency.

Using local feedback, i.e. a DDS-based or fractional-N loop (wide loop
BW but probably fairly horrible drift) inside an 80-kHz bang-bang loop
would relax the requirements on the VCXO proper.

This is all such fun that I may have to try building something like that.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


Yes, John Larkin gets the prize for the most interesting project of the
week. Lucky dog.

Here's a possible idea for evaluating the feasibility of different
schemes. Calculate the entropy of the 155.52 MHz signal. Estimate the
frequency drift of the VCXO and represent it as the number of bits of
information lost per 12.5 us update period. Then the feedback needs to
supply at least this number of bits of information to be a possible
solution. If the required feedback SNR is too high, then you know you
need to use the information from more phase comparisons, not just the
easy 12.5 us ones.


Something like that. We'll probably lay out a nice multilayer proto
board with a few candidate VCXO locations, 10 MHz filters, and
dipswitches and trimpots in the loop lowpass filter to make it easy to
tune. Seed that with SMA connectors for analysis, and experiment. Good
intern sort of project.

Putting a cover over the XO, to keep air currents off it, can reduce
jitter a lot.


This is cool:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Software/PhaseNoise.exe

It was done by one of the s.e.d. guys some time ago; Jeroen? It lets
you convert a phase noise curve to RMS jitter.


Whatever gets results is good. I wonder how intern errors sum. I don't
think it's a half power law, although I suppose it depends on the
intern. Maybe you can hire the re-incarnation of Claude Shannon.

I'm biased toward lots calculation and simulation before building and
fiddling - for complicated systems anyhow. I think it's from working
early in my career without much theory. That was frustrating as hell.

Anyway, I make your 155.52 MHz oscillator with 0.2 ps rms jitter as
containing 15.0 bits of information. When it degrades to 12.7 bits
you're on the edge of your 1 ps error budget. That and how fast it
degrades should set the performance requirements on the feedback loop.

ChesterW


Seems to me that more modulation of a sine wave carries more
information, not less.

Does a perfect sine wave convey an infinite amount of information?



The answer depends on un-supplied details.

In the sense of sending data using a carrier, then more modulation can
mean more information content. It depends on the determinism of the
modulation.

In the sense of sending data using a carrier, then a perfect sine wave
with infinite extent in time conveys zero information.

In the sense of a time reference, a perfect sine wave with zero error
conveys infinite information.

So how about that, the same signal conveys both zero and infinite
information, depending on the question. Reminds me of a story about
imaginary cows that I may post later.

In your oscillator problem I modeled the system as a clock with each
reference tick happening at 1/155.52 MHz. The 0.2 ps rms jitter is the
uncertainty in the time measurement. For these numbers, that's about 1
part in 32k, which requires about 15.0 bits to specify. Since the jitter
is random from cycle to cycle, this represents the maximum precision of
the system which I take as the information content of the (perfectly
aligned) system related to timing.

When the error from sources besides jitter accumulates to your spec of 1
ps, then the system is precise to about 1 part in 6400, or about 12.7
bits. So, when random occurrences cause your system to drift from
perfectly aligned to just out of spec, the time reference has lost about
2.3 bits of information.

So, if you know the drift rate of the timing of the system, then you can
calculate the data loss rate in bits per second. Since bits per second,
bandwidth, and SNR are related in the channel capacity formula, this may
be a tool to evaluate feedback schemes. If the feedback can't supply
enough bps, then it can't control the loop. I think this might set a
necessary but not sufficient condition, which at least may keep you from
wasting time building something that has no chance of working, which of
course is the purpose of analysis in engineering.

ChesterW


Just because you can divide two things that are in the same units, and
convert the result to bits, doesn't mean you should!


That's a true statement if I've ever heard one.

ChesterW

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:18:42 -0400, krw@attt.bizz Gave us:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 12:36:31 GMT, Jan Panteltje <panteltje@yahoo.com
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 20 Sep 2014 20:42:28 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <lvjlmr$1tj$1@dont-email.me>:

On 20/09/2014 7:58 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 19 Sep 2014 21:58:16 -0700 (PDT)) it happened
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote in
6eb4d413-9b79-48f5-84f3-d73d93bbc9e8@googlegroups.com>:

snip

And those fusion lasers, chances are same as winning the euromillions.

Never the main reason for the set-up - it's actual job, as a opposed to
the PR window-dressing, has always been nuclear weapons testing and
maintenance.

Now I am curious, how do you test nukes by imploding a pellet of ??
with lasers?
US has plenty nukes, some need fresh plutonium I've read..

"Fresh plutonium"? Perhaps tritium but Pt doesn't go "stale" (in
hundreds of our lifetimes).

Maybe some more recent electronics, would make me feel safer.


Microsoft nukes? Google nukes? They seem to be fine, just as they
are.

LANL X-Rays nukes to determine ongoing efficacy claims.

It is a long standing, decades old, regular test program.

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 14:37:56 GMT, Jan Panteltje <panteltje@yahoo.com>
Gave us:

Da nigga seems to want nuke war with Russia.

You always seem to find a way to take your inane, abject stupidity to
an all new low.