simple frequecny multiplier

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin
<jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote (in
<qtmb51laprfl6eoakanps2if7mpvt0sf5f@4ax.com&gt about 'simple frequecny
multiplier', on Thu, 7 Apr 2005:

Are you trying to measure the speed of the earth through the aether?

It is suspected of exceeding the speed limit, and we will all be fined
$10 each.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 08:16:58 +0100, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote (in
qtmb51laprfl6eoakanps2if7mpvt0sf5f@4ax.com&gt about 'simple frequecny
multiplier', on Thu, 7 Apr 2005:

Are you trying to measure the speed of the earth through the aether?

It is suspected of exceeding the speed limit, and we will all be fined
$10 each.

There should be a required PSEUDOSCIENCE AMATEUR heading for threads
like this. That would save us a lot of time.

John

 

[colin]

"John Larkin" <jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote in
message news:ks9d51di59cvb13rr2bud6nieihkjtlqa2@4ax.com...

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 08:16:58 +0100, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote (in
qtmb51laprfl6eoakanps2if7mpvt0sf5f@4ax.com&gt about 'simple frequecny
multiplier', on Thu, 7 Apr 2005:

Are you trying to measure the speed of the earth through the aether?

It is suspected of exceeding the speed limit, and we will all be fined
$10 each.


There should be a required PSEUDOSCIENCE AMATEUR heading for threads
like this. That would save us a lot of time.

Well im sorry if you feel youve wasted your time, but i do apreciate your
other comments.

I got the multiplier working quite easily in the end, and over a long time
the control voltage from the PLL doesnt seem to change that I can detect on
a 4 digit meter, however the short term phase movement was rather
disapointing, I tried your idea of using a heavy aluminium can on the XO but
this made little diference. one oscilator definatly seemed to be far more
sensitive to anything going near it over the short term than the other but
the control voltage always quickly returned to the same value and never
moved more than a few milivolts even when touching it with a finger.

These fairly new TC devices from CMAC looked quite good on the product
description and seem to perform as brilaintly as they claim over longer time
intervals, but like you sugested isnt realy a match for the themral time
response and beter operating point of the oven types, wich is a shame.

So I have some cheap OCXO coming soon i hope.

The best OCXO i could find were again from CMAC and they quoute the 1hz
phase noise as low as -120db and short term stability over 1S as 2x10-13
wich is obviously ideal, but probably prohibitvly expensive, or hard to
obtain.

Im not building a dvice to measure the speed of the earth through the aether
as you put it (thats suposed to have been proven not to exist) but something
simple and reproducabble that can actualy demonstrate that the speed of
light in one direction only isnt (or maybe is) afected by it. Most such
experimants have only one source and so inevitably take the speed of light
averaged over a return path in order to compare it with the originating
source.

I would feel sorry for Michelson, Morley and Sivertooth who have
investigated this too, if they are to be condsidered as pseudoscience
amatteurs. I dont see whats wrong with building something to measure such
fundemental scientific principles, using technlogy thats improved since it
was first performed over a century ago. (principles that some say are defied
by the ring gyros you mentioned.)

Il keep quiet if i detect its moving over 100mph as its an automatic ban
here, however i hear the Vogons are going to build an intergalactic highway
through this way soon so maybe the speed restriction wil be lifted.

Colin =^.^=

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:40:42 GMT, "colin"
<no.spam.for.me@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Im not building a dvice to measure the speed of the earth through the aether
as you put it (thats suposed to have been proven not to exist) but something
simple and reproducabble that can actualy demonstrate that the speed of
light in one direction only isnt (or maybe is) afected by it.

Same thing.

Most such
experimants have only one source and so inevitably take the speed of light
averaged over a return path in order to compare it with the originating
source.

Nothing wrong with that.

I would feel sorry for Michelson, Morley and Sivertooth who have
investigated this too, if they are to be condsidered as pseudoscience
amatteurs. I dont see whats wrong with building something to measure such
fundemental scientific principles, using technlogy thats improved since it
was first performed over a century ago. (principles that some say are defied
by the ring gyros you mentioned.)

I believe the M&M experiment has been repeated with lasers at
something like 1000x the original sensitivity, with the same null
result.. I believe also that Sivertooth is a whacko.

LIGO is interesting in this respect.

John

 

[colin]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:9ipl51lj7db7ihslrv13qls83c6kum43f5@4ax.com...

Most such
experimants have only one source and so inevitably take the speed of
light
averaged over a return path in order to compare it with the originating
source.

Nothing wrong with that.

The Laser Gyro would obviously not work if it had to reflect the light path
back along the circular fibre, wich is my point for avoiding this in this
experiment too. fortunatly for a circular path there is no need to do this
as it conveniently comes back to the original source. The return path tends
to virtualy cancel out any change in delay exept for very high velocities.

I believe the M&M experiment has been repeated with lasers at
something like 1000x the original sensitivity, with the same null
result..

Although the sensitivity of Laser interfermotery can be execeptionaly high,
you are suming a very small delay with a very smal and almost identical
negative delay. This result is exceptionaly small, and some claim certain
mathmatical aproaches (wich might seem dubious) prove this is always a null
result, I realy dont wish to debate this last point however as its extremly
tiresome and i dont understand some of the maths used well enough to point
out or understand any errors in it, there seems to be so much hot air about
this issue.

However for measuring the speed of light in a single direction with no such
return path there can be no such mathmatical issues, especialy by comparing
it with the speed in the oposite direction.

I believe also that Sivertooth is a whacko.

The problem with the silvertooth experiment is that it wasnt exactly
repeatable and as it contradicted such strongly held ideas it was inevitable
people viewed him that way, personaly i do not believe his explanation of
how it gave a result diferent to the M&M experiment. However it did apear in
wireless world in 1996 wich i thought of as a well regarded journal at the
time, and made me think about it.

It is interesting, and i thought if there was a simple way of proving it one
way or the other I would give it a go, the electronics and mechanics of this
aproach realy is very simple indeed, although it does rely heavily on
incredible accuracy from the clocks, i had envisaged using 2 atomic clocks
many years ago wich was obviously impractical as they wernt exactly very
movable, however modern XO etc have come a long way and many are claimed to
be more acurate than atomic clocks now and only revently did i think it was
feasable. The other way i envisaged was to use a freely rotating shaft the
ends of wich would always be in perfect angular synch and provide the clock
source at each end but might be hard to meet mechanical constraints.

If the device can be built with reasonably obtainable parts without the need
for exeptionaly high precision and so would be easily repeatable there would
be little need for any further confusion, and may even be demonstrated in
the classroom, however i realy must confess i am not totaly convinced about
the result, there does seem to be some genuine conflict for either retult,
however I would be rather woried if it contradicted the mainstream thinking.
there seems to be little comercial aplication for such an effect if it was
detectable though, unlike the laser gyros wich are cool.

LIGO is interesting in this respect.

Yes it seem interesting im going to look at that just now.

Colin =^.^=

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Mark <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote
(in <1113324425.919620.225550@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com&gt about
'simple frequecny multiplier', on Tue, 12 Apr 2005:

ok, here is what I suggest you do....

the carrier frequency of WWV is exactly 10MHz. It is more accurate
then any oscillator you can get your hands on.

You can receive that and measure the frequency at your home. (You will
need one very accurate oscillator to make that measurment but thats
another detail.)

Continue to monitor the frequency of WWV for 1 year during which time
the Earth will go around full circle. If you detect any change in the
measured frequency of WWV, let us know.

You didn't happen to mention that the other accurate oscillator must

stay suspended in space while the Earth orbits, or, better still, make
it orbit the Sun in the opposite direction to the Earth. Just remember
to dodge after six months.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[colin]

"Mark" <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1113324425.919620.225550@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

ok, here is what I suggest you do....

the carrier frequency of WWV is exactly 10MHz. It is more accurate
then any oscillator you can get your hands on.

You can receive that and measure the frequency at your home. (You will
need one very accurate oscillator to make that measurment but thats
another detail.)

Continue to monitor the frequency of WWV for 1 year during which time
the Earth will go around full circle. If you detect any change in the
measured frequency of WWV, let us know.

Although sounds like a very interesting experiment, I unclear as to what you
think this will measure apart from the acuracy of my local clock. Unless you
mean i could extrapolate the varying phase change from the change in
frequency this would be more dificult than what i am trying to do i think.
phase errors in the signal pasing through the atmosphere would be to great.

If there was a fiber optic cable between two places that both had reference
clocks you could do this. although the acuracy needed over 24 hours is a lot
more demanding than over 1 second the a distance of several 100km wil
comepnsate.

All i need to do this acruratly is to have two clocks wich can free run and
stay precisly matched to eachother over a 1 second period, or maybe a lot
less if i spin it realy fast. absolute oscilation freq is far less
important. of course dont forget i can also integrate the signal over as
long as necessary.

As i mentioned before another alternative is to have 2 lasers wich can be
tuned to match eachother, I havnt looked into what sort of performance i
could expect from this.

Colin =^.^=

 

[colin]

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message
news:5ARa4syVsAXCFwNV@jmwa.demon.co.uk...

I read in sci.electronics.design that Mark <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote
(in <1113324425.919620.225550@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com&gt about
'simple frequecny multiplier', on Tue, 12 Apr 2005:
ok, here is what I suggest you do....

the carrier frequency of WWV is exactly 10MHz. It is more accurate
then any oscillator you can get your hands on.

You can receive that and measure the frequency at your home. (You will
need one very accurate oscillator to make that measurment but thats
another detail.)

Continue to monitor the frequency of WWV for 1 year during which time
the Earth will go around full circle. If you detect any change in the
measured frequency of WWV, let us know.

You didn't happen to mention that the other accurate oscillator must
stay suspended in space while the Earth orbits, or, better still, make
it orbit the Sun in the opposite direction to the Earth. Just remember
to dodge after six months.
--

If you had a reference clock on mars as well as earth the relative velocity
between the two planets various enoumously over 2 years or so, and so the
speed of the clocks should also vary significantly or wobble, however if you
were an observer on the sun you presunably would not see any such wobble
from either clock.

Colin =^.^=

 

[Fred Bartoli]

"colin" <no.spam.for.me@ntlworld.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:tZW6e.20610$il.19007@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message
news:5ARa4syVsAXCFwNV@jmwa.demon.co.uk...
I read in sci.electronics.design that Mark <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote
(in <1113324425.919620.225550@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com&gt about
'simple frequecny multiplier', on Tue, 12 Apr 2005:
ok, here is what I suggest you do....

the carrier frequency of WWV is exactly 10MHz. It is more accurate
then any oscillator you can get your hands on.

You can receive that and measure the frequency at your home. (You will
need one very accurate oscillator to make that measurment but thats
another detail.)

Continue to monitor the frequency of WWV for 1 year during which time
the Earth will go around full circle. If you detect any change in the
measured frequency of WWV, let us know.

You didn't happen to mention that the other accurate oscillator must
stay suspended in space while the Earth orbits, or, better still, make
it orbit the Sun in the opposite direction to the Earth. Just remember
to dodge after six months.
--

If you had a reference clock on mars as well as earth the relative
velocity
between the two planets various enoumously over 2 years or so, and so the
speed of the clocks should also vary significantly or wobble, however if
you
were an observer on the sun you presunably would not see any such wobble
from either clock.

And you said that you were short on your budget?

Wow


--
Thanks,
Fred.

 

[colin]

"Fred Bartoli"
<fred._canxxxel_this_bartoli@RemoveThatAlso_free.fr_AndThisToo> wrote in
message news:425cf26d$0$32031$626a14ce@news.free.fr...

"colin" <no.spam.for.me@ntlworld.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:tZW6e.20610$il.19007@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
If you had a reference clock on mars as well as earth the relative
velocity
between the two planets various enoumously over 2 years or so, and so
the
speed of the clocks should also vary significantly or wobble, however if
you
were an observer on the sun you presunably would not see any such wobble
from either clock.


And you said that you were short on your budget?

Wow

Any contributions gladly accepted
(i just won some cheap ocxos on ebay so thats a good start)

Colin =^.^=

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:08:43 GMT, "colin"
<no.spam.for.me@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:9ipl51lj7db7ihslrv13qls83c6kum43f5@4ax.com...

Most such
experimants have only one source and so inevitably take the speed of
light
averaged over a return path in order to compare it with the originating
source.

Nothing wrong with that.

The Laser Gyro would obviously not work if it had to reflect the light path
back along the circular fibre, wich is my point for avoiding this in this
experiment too. fortunatly for a circular path there is no need to do this
as it conveniently comes back to the original source. The return path tends
to virtualy cancel out any change in delay exept for very high velocities.

I believe the M&M experiment has been repeated with lasers at
something like 1000x the original sensitivity, with the same null
result..

Although the sensitivity of Laser interfermotery can be execeptionaly high,
you are suming a very small delay with a very smal and almost identical
negative delay. This result is exceptionaly small, and some claim certain
mathmatical aproaches (wich might seem dubious) prove this is always a null
result, I realy dont wish to debate this last point however as its extremly
tiresome and i dont understand some of the maths used well enough to point
out or understand any errors in it, there seems to be so much hot air about
this issue.

However for measuring the speed of light in a single direction with no such
return path there can be no such mathmatical issues, especialy by comparing
it with the speed in the oposite direction.

I believe also that Sivertooth is a whacko.

The problem with the silvertooth experiment is that it wasnt exactly
repeatable and as it contradicted such strongly held ideas it was inevitable
people viewed him that way, personaly i do not believe his explanation of
how it gave a result diferent to the M&M experiment. However it did apear in
wireless world in 1996 wich i thought of as a well regarded journal at the
time, and made me think about it.

It is interesting, and i thought if there was a simple way of proving it one
way or the other I would give it a go, the electronics and mechanics of this
aproach realy is very simple indeed, although it does rely heavily on
incredible accuracy from the clocks, i had envisaged using 2 atomic clocks
many years ago wich was obviously impractical as they wernt exactly very
movable, however modern XO etc have come a long way and many are claimed to
be more acurate than atomic clocks now and only revently did i think it was
feasable. The other way i envisaged was to use a freely rotating shaft the
ends of wich would always be in perfect angular synch and provide the clock
source at each end but might be hard to meet mechanical constraints.

Shortly after HP introduced their cesium clock (it's a huge, heavy
rackmount thing... we have one) they bought two round-the-world
airline seats, one for an engineer and one for the clock with battery
backup. They synched two clocks then flew one around the world. The
flying clock was slower by a few ns, just what relativity predicted.
It was written up in the HP Journal.

John

 

[colin]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:gn1b51tq1dq7jkfvb9da18rmdvfdqqu5rj@4ax.com...

If the problem is to measure a path length by timing the speed of
light, any mechanical distortions of the path make the same noise,
whatever the detector mechanism.

Is this a ring gyro? Lots of work has been done on them! And the
detectors are usually optical interferance.

wel yes its pretty much like a ring gyro, exept its for detecting linear
motion rather than rotational motion. this has been more dificult becuse a
rotational gyro can use the same laser to transmit the signal and compare it
with the received signal, but you cant do this with a linear device becuase
the comparison signal would have to travel the same path as the transmited
signal to arive at the detector and so would undergo the same propagation
delay change. however the Silvertooth experiment did it with a single light
source but i dont realy understand the explanation as to how it avoided this
problem, also it required a highly specialised detector and elaberate
optical setup and was i beleive rather tempermental, and i have not heard of
it being repeated so i am interested in doing this.

im therfore using two clocks 1 meter apart that are synchronised to be
precisly in phase over a long average time then rotating them say about
60rpm+ and detecting the cyclic phase diference. I estimate that if the
earth is moving at 100,000 kmh wich i have heard banded about somewhere then
the diference i would be looking for would only be ~0.5 ps wich is indeed
small, but i reckon isnt entirly beyond the realms of detection.

Colin =^.^=

 

[Rich Grise]

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:40:42 +0000, colin wrote:

I would feel sorry for Michelson, Morley and Sivertooth who have
investigated this too, if they are to be condsidered as pseudoscience
amatteurs. I dont see whats wrong with building something to measure such
fundemental scientific principles, using technlogy thats improved since it
was first performed over a century ago. (principles that some say are
defied by the ring gyros you mentioned.)

Well, the one ring gyro that I did have an opportunity to manhandle did,
in fact, verify that the ether wind does NOT cause doppler shift between
the incident beam and the reflected one.

I could tell it was working, because they had their interferometer coupled
to an audio amp. You could hear it move when you touched it.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:06:56 -0700, Mark wrote:

well if you believe the earth is travel though an aether of some sort
(which I don't) then you will detect a change in the received frequency of
WWV as the earth rotates and travels around the sun because sometimes the
signal from WWV will be traveling parallel to the aether wind and
sometimes it will be traveling perpendicular to the wind. And unlike the
MM experiment, which you apparently don't believe in because it is a two
way round trip path, the path from WWV to your house is a one way path.

The problem with the Aether is that it's infinitely rigid, massless, and
vibrating at all frequencies and amplitudes, in every dimension,
simultaneously.

In other words, God. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[colin]

"mike" <spamme0@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:4255DC84.2010308@netscape.net...

colin wrote:

Ok, so we're gonna argue all day about it.
How do you propose to determine the frequency coming out of your
multiplier with that beer can and popsicle stick? Tweek on it and you
get more...more what???...who knows...maybe you got lucky...maybe...

well i managed to detemine what frequency i have by looking at the frequency
coming out of the mixer. ie i set the inputs to 40Mhz and 40.0001Mhz and i
get out a strong 1khz so its working at x10.
you can also clearly see the sub harmonics when it is out of tune on the
scope. they disapear as far as i can see on the scope when I tune it wich
will suit my purpose.

Of course, you can build a resonant cavity from the beer can.
Good luck.

wel i did come accross this ... http://users4.ev1.net/~wsprowls/cavity.html

I gots a piston to change. My beer can is almost empty and the popsicle
stick is sharp.

good luck.

On a more serious note, there are 100MHz x 5 and 500MHz x 2 multipliers
in the Tektronix TG501 Time Mark Generator. Sounded like a good idea at
the time...30 years ago. But it was a nightmare. You really do need to
control the drive waveform and have idler paths for the undesired
harmonics. Amplitudes can get very high and you loose all your energy
in losses at the frequencies of undesired harmonics.
And we had the BEST equipment available to work on it.

Thanks for the tips

I know multipliying crystal frequencies has often been done by radio
enthusiasts, theres lots of quite detailed information for low frequency
ones of course, and the project in the above link uses a srd for one as
someone also sugested, however i get adequate results from my single bf998
(biased low) with input stage tuned at 200mhz driven from the 40mhz xo and
an output stage tuned at 400 mhz, (tranmsmision line driven from a tap)
bf998 definatly my fav transistor these days. Also the input to the mixer is
tuned to 400mhz.

I stuck to 400mhz in the end (wich like the example you gave is x5,x2), as
im using a sa602a mixer atm wich probaly will give diminishing returns if I
go any higher, also the inductors for tuning the input to this are almost
down to a single turn.

Colin =^.^=

 

[douglas dwyer]

In message <b6ka511h2lrb9v09flm6tblohsmscamh4h@4ax.com>, John Larkin
<jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX> writes

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 05:36:27 GMT, "colin"
no.spam.for.me@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote in
message news:qve95150hjeho69si4nqn7raqsvtn2qqg9@4ax.com...
Why are picosecond delays interesting here?
What's the application?

its for an experiment trying detect any relative change in speed of light.

1 ps RMS jitter over 100 ms time will be very difficult. A good
crystal oscillator can do a few tens of ps over 100 ms; a very good
ocxo can hit 1 ps over that time.

im using the latest VCTCXO from cmac cfpt-9000 series wich are suposed to be
very good, certainly from stability anyway although they dont quote phase
noise/jitter explicitly, i think its suposed to be one of the lowest,
certainly stability is very good. maybe better over short term than an ocxo
as it operates at lower temperature and has no thermal feedback loop. i
beleive you can also now get these as a oven controled version too. its
useful to know the figures you mentioned tho.


TCXOs have a temperature transient problem: the temp comp sensor never
has the same thermal time constant as the crystal itself, so whereas
the compensation averages very good, a millikelvin delta-t over 100 ms
can cause a lot of phase shift. A good OCXO will have a huge thermal
isolation system and also operates the crystal at its "turning
temperature" where the inherent TC is zero. All that makes a huge
difference in close-in phase noise. If you use a TCXO, put it in a
heavy aluminum can to slow down temperature transients; that alone can
cut thermally-induced phase noise 10:1.

A good SC-cut OCXO is a few hundred dollars new and is the best you
can do without going atomic. You can get a used rubidium for about the
same, but I'm not sure the short-term stability is necessarily better
than the SC.

Considered an optical interferometer?

John


Google "Allens Time" for a spread sheet to convert SSB noise to jitter.

You must consider noise floor, best with SAW resonators and close in
noise best with crystals (which cant be driven as hard as SAWs).
SC cut crystals are much less sensitive to thermal transient (true
thermal fluctuation)
Still got some surplus 16.384 MHz SC cut OXCOs <better than 1ppe-10/day
if you are really trying hard for the record; phase lock a max drive saw
resonator oscillator to an SC cut OCXO.
PS I dont read my Demon emails.



--
dd

 

[colin]

"douglas dwyer" <dd@ddwyer.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:NgsjGhCb0$XCFw4M@ddwyer.demon.co.uk...

Google "Allens Time" for a spread sheet to convert SSB noise to jitter.
You must consider noise floor, best with SAW resonators and close in
noise best with crystals (which cant be driven as hard as SAWs).
SC cut crystals are much less sensitive to thermal transient (true
thermal fluctuation)
Still got some surplus 16.384 MHz SC cut OXCOs <better than 1ppe-10/day
if you are really trying hard for the record; phase lock a max drive saw
resonator oscillator to an SC cut OCXO.

Thanks, ive just got some surplus ocxos on delivery from ebay, ive given the
idea of a pll some thought and as the only reason is to get beter signal
strength from a phase detector a pll with pd operating at the un multiplied
frequency will defeat the object.

Also although a x25 multiplier will multiply the noise bandwidth by 25 it
will also multiply the output by 25 too so no loss here unless the
multiplier adds its own noise but its a low noise stage operating at high
signal so unlikly.

maybe the best solution would be to pass the multiplied signal through the
saw filter.

Incidently, is low frequency capacitor noise an issue with tantalum
capacitors, ie leakage current fluctiations ? particularly in a <1hz pll
loop filter.

Colin.

 

[douglas dwyer]

In message <R0V7e.22918$il.21772@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, colin
<no.spam.for.me@ntlworld.com> writes

Incidently, is low frequency capacitor noise an issue with tantalum
capacitors, ie leakage current fluctiations ? particularly in a <1hz
pll loop filter.
The best source for all information on capacitor noise/distortion is

Cyril Bateman, his articles in electronics world uk reach conclusions
and tell you how to measure.
Primarily as a means of demonstrating whats best for audio but none the
worse for that!
--
dd