[time-nuts] GPSDO control loops and correcting quantization error

lists at lazygranch.com lists at lazygranch.com
Sun Sep 16 03:48:02 UTC 2012


The PWM DAC should have perfect differential linearity, which I believe is all that matters in this application. (That and no missing codes.) Not so when you try to combine two DACs to make one higher resolution DAC. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Harris <celephicus at gmail.com>
Sender: time-nuts-bounces at febo.com
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 12:00:55 
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement<time-nuts at febo.com>
Reply-To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
	<time-nuts at febo.com>
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] GPSDO control loops and correcting quantization
	error

Second the comments on implementing a 16 bit DAC. You need separate
analogue/digital grounds, superb voltage references, and lots of attempts
to get a good design that actually uses the L.S. bit (rather than losing it
in the noise).

What you can do is use a second DAC to offset the 16 bit DAC. The offset
DAC need only be 8 bit, as long as it is stable. I used this to autozero
the output of a photomultiplier amplifier, and I needed about 20 bits  to
get the correct resolution. However, it can be tricky to adjust the offset
DAC without jumps in the output.

Incidentally superb experimental design, circuit boards taped to an odd
piece of cardboard, with jumpers leads to tie everything together :). I use
a dab of hot melt glue to do similar, and it can be used to secure wiring
as well.


On 15 September 2012 07:01, Don Latham <djl at montana.com> wrote:

> Michael: Actually implementing a 16 bit DAC to its 1-bit minimum
> resolution will be headache enough. You will gain a real education in
> good grounding practice, shielding, power supply stability and noise,
> and other Murphy intrusion. A 32 bit DAC IMHO, is impossible, and that's
> the name of that tune.
> Don
>
> Chris Albertson
> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Michael Tharp
> > <gxti at partiallystapled.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Finally, do people think a 16 bit DAC is adequate or should I consider
> >> building a 32-bit one? I looked at a few designs when putting this
> >> together
> >> but decided to keep it simple until things were up and running.
> >
> > Having a 32-bit DAC would give you enough range so that you could drop
> > in any OCXO you might have.  But if you can have trimmer resisters to
> > selected for your specif OCXO then 16-bits should be enough.   If it
> > were me, I'd want the DAC steps to be smaller than what the phase
> > detector can measure.     Said another way a 32-bit DAC might
> > eliminate the need for scale and offset trimmer resistors.
> >
> > Chris Albertson
> > Redondo Beach, California
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
> > To unsubscribe, go to
> > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> > and follow the instructions there.
> >
>
>
> --
> "Neither the voice of authority nor the weight of reason and argument
> are as significant as experiment, for thence comes quiet to the mind."
> De Erroribus Medicorum, R. Bacon, 13th century.
> "If you don't know what it is, don't poke it."
> Ghost in the Shell
>
>
> Dr. Don Latham AJ7LL
> Six Mile Systems LLP
> 17850 Six Mile Road
> POB 134
> Huson, MT, 59846
> VOX 406-626-4304
> www.lightningforensics.com
> www.sixmilesystems.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to
> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>



-- 

Tom Harris <celephicus at gmail.com>
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.


More information about the Time-nuts_lists.febo.com mailing list