[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