[time-nuts] Understanding Oliver Collins Paper "Design of Low Jitter Hard Limiters"
azelio.boriani at screen.it
Wed Aug 22 05:55:11 EDT 2012
In your opinion, if I build a 7404 ZCD and a hard limiter one, can I see
the jitter difference on a simple 'scope (Tek TDS220 or TDS3012) or do I
need the Wavecrest SIA3000?
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Bob Camp <lists at rtty.us> wrote:
> Since the Collins approach "tunes" the system for a single frequency input
> (more or less), the approach is probably not the best for a "many decades"
> sort of frequency range. There are a number of things that he alludes to in
> the paper, but does not directly address. The most obvious is the
> temperature dependance of the "stuff" the system is made of. Another is the
> simple fact that a non-clipping linear amplifier is likely the best choice
> for a first stage, provide the input is not already near clipping.
> On Aug 21, 2012, at 12:50 PM, raj_sodhi at agilent.com wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> > I am new to this forum.
> > It looks like a lively discussion on various topics.
> > A colleague of mine here at Agilent pointed me to this paper entitled
> "The Design of Low Jitter Hard Limiters" by Oliver Collins. In Bruce
> Griffiths' precision time in frequency webpage, this paper is described as
> > (http://www.ko4bb.com/~bruce/ZeroCrossingDetectors.html)
> > Since I'm trying to create a limiter that will accept frequencies
> ranging from 1 MHz to 100 MHz, I thought it would be good to understand the
> conclusions of this paper (if not the mathematics as well). The
> mathematics turned out to be quite challenging to decode. Has someone on
> this forum unraveled the equations? It appears Collins has recommendations
> on the bandwidth and gain of a jitter minimizing limiter, and then extends
> this analysis to provide the bandwidth and gain of a cascade of limiters.
> But the application is still fuzzy. In figure 5, he shows a graph showing
> the dependence of jitter on crossing time. Is the crossing time (implied
> by equations 7) considered a design parameter one can vary? Also, on figure
> 4, the "k" parameter has been varied to show the rising waveform as a
> function of "k". The threshold is always assumed to be 0.5. So could "k"
> be related to "tau", the time constant of the RC filter?
> > Thanks in advance for all your help.
> > Yours
> > Raj
> > _______________________________________________
> > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
> > To unsubscribe, go to
> > and follow the instructions there.
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to
> and follow the instructions there.
More information about the time-nuts