[time-nuts] V standards
WarrenS
warrensjmail-one at yahoo.com
Mon Dec 1 19:22:42 UTC 2008
Concerning the Need for very high resolution Dacs in GPSDO.
>Bruce said: "However there are low noise OCXOs with EFC adjustment
>ranges of 1E-6 or more, (that would benefit from >20 bit Dacs)
>From what I have seen so far, the higher the accuracy of the OSC
used in a GPSDO the LESS there is the need to use a high resolution Dac.
The FS725 rubidium with it's 2e-9 external EFC range, would not seem
to need more than the most simple 12 to 16 bit EXTERNAL tracking Dac.
True that its internal Dac needs to have very high resolution if it is used
to lock an internal VCXO that has a range of say 1e-6.
Question: Is the Aging rate of these low noise OCXO units poor enough
that you could not use a couple of fixed precision resistor and/or a pot
for course adjustment and reduce the EFC range of the DAC by say 1/100 ?.
Are there low noise OCXO (that are being used in GPSDO) whose long term
drift over say 6 months would need more than 1E-8 or so of 'automatic' turning?
And concerning the 10811A. Should one consider reducing its EFC
tuning range by say 2 to 20 to ease the requirements of the Dac?
Even if the EFC tuning range was reduced by just a factor of two,
It could then be done with just a standard 0 to 5 volt Dac
instead of the -5 to +5 that I saw suggested by its spec.
I would think that a well aged unit would be much better than its worse case
spec of 1E-7 per year, And even if not, I'm guessing that many of the time-nuts,
would be very welling to trade off it needing a have few extra manual adjustments
in order to get better performance.
WarrenS
*****************
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Griffiths" <bruce.griffiths at xtra.co.nz>
To: "Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement" <time-nuts at febo.com>
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 3:38 AM
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] V standards
> Mike
>> >Mike
>>
>> > In testing high resolution DACs (20+ bits) used in GPSDOs etc a
>> > high resolution DVM (or equivalent) with low noise and good short
>> > term stability is useful if not essential.
>>
>> > Monotonicity and perhaps linearity together with good short term
>> > stability are generally more important than absolute accuracy.
>>
>> > Higher resolution is usually accompanied with higher accuracy.
>>
>> > DVMs like the 3457A. 3456A etc dont have sufficiently low noise or
>> > good enough short term stability for testing DACs with 24 bit
>> > resolution.
>>
>> >Bruce
>>
>> I wonder if 20+ bits is even realistic for a frequency reference.
>>
>> That would give a LSB of 1/2^20=9.53e-7, or 1ppm, and none of the
>> voltage references discussed will maintain this accuracy over long
>> periods.
>>
>>
> 24 bit resolution isnt required when using a 10811A class OCXO with a
> total EFC adjustment range of about 1E-7.
> Even 20 bits is a bit more resolution than actually required in this case.
> However there are low noise OCXOs with EFC adjustment ranges of 1E-6 or
> more.
> In a GPSDO long term stability of the EFC DAC offset and gain isnt
> critical except when the GPSDO is in holdover.
>> And what would a 24-bit DAC be used for? From previous discussions,
>> high accuracy sources, like H-Masers are not adjusted. And it would
>> seem silly to put such a high resolution DAC on a OCXO. That leaves
>> Cesium, which I understand are used in GPS satellites and do need
>> adjustment, but I don't have any information on the tuning
>> sensitivity to figure the effect 1 LSB would have on the frequency.
>>
>> I haven't had much luck finding a true 24-bit DAC. There are plenty
>> of stereo dacs, but they can have gain drifts of 100ppm/C, which is
>> useless for a reference.
>>
>>
> No you have to build your own.
> The trick is doing it without requiring impossibly accurate and stable
> resistors or resistor ratios etc.
> Since the DAC update rate is relatively slow in such applications
> (GPSDO) indirect techniques that are inherently monotonic can be used.
> The FS725 rubidium standard has an internal 22 bit DAC.
> Hydrogen masers usually include similarly high resolution DACs.
> Such DACs are usually constructed by combining the outputs of 2 lower
> resolution DACs with some overlap.
> The drawback being the relatively large differential nonlinearity when
> the MSDAC output changes.
> This increases the settling time of the discipling loop in the vicinity
> of such changes.
> However such MSDAC output changes don't occur very often.
> Another application for such high resolution DACs is in accelerator beam
> steering.
> In this case frequent calibration is used together with suitable
> software to avoid such large differential nonlinearities.
>
>> With a 5V reference, a 24-bit DAC would give a LSB of 5e9/2^24=298
>> nanovolts. If I had to test one, and didn't have a 3458A, I could
>> use a 3456A. It has a resolution of 100nV on the 100mV range, so it
>> could verify the bottom portion of the DAC from zero to 100mV. Once
>> the lower 8 bits are confirmed good, the rest of the DAC could be
>> checked by exercising each high-order bit singly, then in various
>> combinations with the other bits.
>>
>>
> I had such techniques in mind for checking the monotonicity.
> Could also check against a KVD (e.g. Fluke 720A).
> However the shipping charges are rather high.
> It is possible to achieve a readout resolution of 100nV using a 3457A on
> the 3V range.
> However this is only available via the GPIB.
> Similarly even a 34401A can achieve a resolution of 100nV on the 10V
> range but only via either the GPIB or its serial interface.
> However the 300nV LSB is uncomfortably close to the DVM noise level and
> DVM drift isn't insignificant.
> For this application the DAC transfer function only has to be monotonic
> so testing requirements are somewhat relaxed.
>> Another method would be to use two 24-bit DACs and a AD8571 to
>> measure the difference between them. The AD8571 could be set to a
>> gain of 100, so 298nV becomes 29.8uV which is well within the
>> capability of a 3456A.
>>
>>
> The LTC1151 is perhaps a better choice in some respects in that it can
> use -15V and +15V supplies allowing a greater input voltage range
> simplifying the input overvoltage protection.
> Although the AD8571 power supply could be bootstrapped to achieve a much
> larger input range.
> Even lower drift and noise is possible if one builds one's own chopper
> stabilised preamp.
>> The test would be to set both DACs to zero and measure the
>> difference in output voltage. It should be close to zero.
>>
>> Next, set the LSB of the reference DAC to 1. The 3456A should read
>> close to 29.8uV.
>>
>> Then set the LSB of the test DAC to 1. The 3456A should read close
>> to zero.
>>
>> Follow this procedure with each bit in turn to verify the
>> functionality, then test various combinations to check for two or
>> more bits that are stuck together. The LSB could be used in
>> conjunction with the bit being tested to prevent saturating the
>> AD8571.
>>
>> The above tests are not as good as a dedicated test for a precision
>> DAC, but might serve in lieu of spending $4k to $7k for a 3568A.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Mike Monett
>>
>>
> Bruce
>
>
>
More information about the Time-nuts_lists.febo.com
mailing list