[time-nuts] Frequency divider design critique request

Magnus Danielson magnus at rubidium.dyndns.org
Sat Jul 12 04:37:44 EDT 2008


From: Bruce Griffiths <bruce.griffiths at xtra.co.nz>
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Frequency divider design critique request
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:11:03 +1200
Message-ID: <4877F697.2040700 at xtra.co.nz>

> Magnus Danielson wrote:
> > Why not? It basically solves a problem most of us has, and only a few tweaks
> > away and it solves it fairly generically. The only think it doesn't do well is
> > handling 5 MHz souces rather than 10 MHz. Having that would solve many
> > problems. While not achieving full metrological levels of stability, I am sure
> > it could be handy for several time-nuts never the less. Only a few need that
> > upper level anyway. A good prooven design for enought stability and decent
> > money might be right. I would certainly not mind having a pair of those lying
> > around and I am sure I could put a few into continous use. Now that is my lab
> > alone...
> >
> >
> >   
> Magnus
> 
> A minimalist approach for the 5MHz to 10MHz doubler could use a full 
> wave (diode, BJT or JFET) doubler followed by a series tuned 5MHz shunt 
> trap to minimise the 5MHz content in the output.

Actually, it depends on weither you would like to get a 10 MHz or not.
Another solution would be to run the first divider to /5 rather than /10
and only use the doubler for the 10 MHz output. Ah well.

> If the doubler components were perfectly matched (unlikely) the 
> fundamental trap could be omitted.

Agreed. If the zero of the shunt trap is made low-Q the tuning of the shunt
becomes almost unnecessary. Also, temperature shifts on components would not
shift phase as much.

> The other harmonics are of little concern as the comparator output is a 
> square wave and the rectified sinewave waveform would produce a duty 
> cycle of around 44% at the comparator output.

Unless the duty cycle is important, the overtones help to keep the slew rate
high and this avoids adding too much jitter.

> The diode turn on threshold will alter the duty cycle somewhat but it 
> should still be acceptable at least for clocking the flipflops and dividers.

Agreed.

> If desired a threshold feedback loop could be used to stabilise the 
> comparator duty cycle at 50%.

Good thought. Should be a trivial thing.

> However such a duty cycle stabiliser only works when the input signal 
> waveform is sinusoidal, rectified sinewave or any other signal with a 
> slow enough slew rate.

Indeed.

I was only thinking that maybe there ought to be a buffer from the input
to the rectifier, or else higher frequency energy will escape out towards the
source. At least some isolation should be there.

Cheers,
Magnus




More information about the time-nuts mailing list