[time-nuts] CW12-TIM vs M12M and the world
SAIDJACK at aol.com
SAIDJACK at aol.com
Fri Mar 30 18:10:53 UTC 2012
Hi Ed,
no problem. It's an issue when some companies claim 2ns, when it's really
5ns. Or show phase noise plots that seem to be measurements of just the
oscillator removed from the board and measured in a clean-room environment,
not measurements of the module with all the digital control noise and spurs
etc added..
bye,
Said
In a message dated 3/30/2012 10:29:32 Pacific Daylight Time,
ed_palmer at sasktel.net writes:
Hi Said,
On 3/30/2012 10:53 AM, Said Jackson wrote:
> Hello Ed, Azelio,
>
> We should also compare the same parameters. Sawtooth error of the m12+
of +/-25ns is not its standard deviation, it's max/min. Compare that number
to your 30ns max/min measurement on the 5372a.
Yes, you're right. Thanks for the clarification.
> Standard deviation of the m12+ is around 2ns with correction. That needs
to be compared to the 5ns you measure on the 5372a as that is the best
performance you will get from the CW12. Yes the uncorrected 1pps of the m12 is
worse, but it is designed to be used with correction. So in the end the
m12m still performs better than the CW12.
That's why I suggested to the OP that if the Commsync II uses sawtooth
correction the CW12 might not improve his performance. The limited
command set you mentioned in your other message is another potential
problem.
Ed
More information about the Time-nuts_lists.febo.com
mailing list