WWVB Receiver

(corrected an editing scar)

I have posted complete details of the noise rejecting sampler here. The zdncpfd is a combination of the sampler plus a very simple extension of the comventional pfd.

The end result is the output doesn't follow the linear response of a conventional pfd, so the conventional 20*log(N) response no longer applies. It also has no differential delay for + and - phase errors, so there is no deadband. It is a full phase-frequency detector, so it guarantees lock if the oscillator has enough range. It is unlike any phase detector you have ever seen.

So say I make a times-N PLL multiplier using your magic gizmo, and then divide its output down by N again. I assume we agree that the divider _reduces_ the phase noise by 20 log N decibels, yes? (Apart from its additional jitter, which is not proportional to N.)

So just by multiplying up and dividing down again, with no additional phase reference, we can reduce the phase noise of the fundamental to any desired degree--doesn't that follow?

No doubt. I'm having trouble finding where you posted this design, though--you've only been posting as "Jan Frank" since Christmas Eve. Should I be looking under some other nym?

It would save time if you could repost it.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

No. It does not REDUCE the phase noise. Each oscillator has it's own phase noise which is not affected by the zdncpfd. It merely decouples one from the other.

No. See above.

I have to keep changing my nym since Youtube bans me for violating their idiotic rules which you don't find out about until you break one of them.

I used Steve Wilson for a long time. I searched through my recent posts and could not find the entry, so it was a while ago. I finally got a new web site to upload the information, but I have been busy searching for a new pcb cad program to ease layouts. After going thorough a number such as Altium, EasyCad, and many others, I finally settled on Diptrace. I consider this is the best program since PCAD of the DOS days. Now I have to put it to work and complete some projects.

I plan to as soon as I get some other things out of the way. I also need to build a cross-coupled phase noise tester to prove the results. See Rubiola. Thanks for your interest and comments.

It isn't your magic thing that does the reducing, it's the divider, silly.

Ah, okay, it's Mike Mpnett. Hiya.

Yeah, sure, I'll be waiting with bated breath. Please work on perpetual motion next.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

It has nothing to do with the divider. It is the phase detector. You can lock two 10MHz signals together, such as a Rubidium and an OCXO and it works the same. [...]

Some people felt the same about the noise rejecting sampler.

My thought experiment has everything to do with the divider, because it shows that your scheme is impossible even in principle. If you can multiply without incurring the 20 log N penalty, then by the well known properties of dividers, you can divide it down and get something 20 log N decibels quieter than the signal you started with.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

(Added a bit of clarification--the phase detector gizmo probably works great, but it can't avoid the 20 log N.)

The output is not the conventional linear pdf + and - pulses. The 20*log(N) does not apply.

It can and does. It applies the technique used in the noise rejecting sampler amplitude domain to the time domain. I searched for years to find a way to do this, and finally found it.

As I stated, it is unlike any other pfd you have seen before.

Mention of amplitude domain makes me wonder if your development is related to Pettigrew's amplitude locked loop?

piglet (who knows nothing about amplitude locked loops)

No sort of phase detector--linear mixer, sampling, bang/bang, xor, you name it--can get rid of the 20 log N, because it ain't the phase detector that produces it. It's inherent to the multiplication process.

It's inherent in the frequency multiplication process.

Sure, because then 20 log N = 0.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Ohai, Mike M aka Steve aka Jan. You don't need to change your USENET nym to defeat Youtube, and I wish you wouldn't.

"it knows how much error... and when it is going to issue" means it's making a prediction. The prediction must be continually corrected, and that requires some kind of LPF doesn't it? So the 1PPS is effectively a PLL locked to the 1PPS from the GPS signal, as I said. I didn't mention the 10MHz signal.

Cheers,

Clifford Heath

On a sunny day (Tue, 4 Jan 2022 15:25:06 -0500) it happened Phil Hobbs snipped-for-privacy@electrooptical.net wrote in snipped-for-privacy@electrooptical.net:

I cannot follow you there sure the timeconstant in the PLL loop matters, your oscillator can be super super quiet, low phase noise, but slowly steered to the exact frequency?

Or are we talking about different things?

I found some links in google, but the articles were unintelligible. It has no relation to my work.

I keep telling you it is not linear and does not follow the same limitations.

If you use a conventional pfd, the rubidium noise will transfer to the OCXO since the pfd is linear. The 20*log(1) is meaningless here.

My detector is not linear and will not transfer the rubidium noise to the OCXO. It will lock on frequency and phase, but the rubidium jitter will not affect the OCXO.

Every case of locking one oscillator to another shows a shelf in the phase noise where the jitter is inside the loop bandwidth. My detector eliminates this shelf.

For example, you could lock a SAW oscillator at 1 GHZ to a crystal oscillator at 1 MHz. Normally, the 20*log(N) would produce 60 dB of degredation in the SAW phase noise.

My detector decouples the SAW from the crystal, and keeps the original SAW phase noise.

similarly, you could lock a GUNN at 10GHz to a 1 MHz crystal. This would normally produce 80 dB degredation in the GUNN phase noise, which is why ultra pure oscillators running at as high a frequency are sought after. See Wenzel 100Mhz ULN oscillators.

With my detector, this is no longer true. You can use any stable crystal to achieve the same frequency stability without the additional noise due to frequency multiplication.

Thanks for your comments. You are giving me excellent ammunition when it comes to selling my detector to major companies in the low noise business.

Too bad.

No, you still don't understand. There is no locking of the 1PPS to GPS. You can have multiple phase reversals as the receiver clock drifts high and low. You can have hanging bridges, where the internal clock is temporarily at the correct frequency, but the wrong phase.

See Tom Van Baak, Sawtooth and hanging bridges, timing stability at

Am 04.01.22 um 14:00 schrieb Jan Frank:

Google spends 0.7 seconds of its valuable search time to return nothing but this conversation here and something that seems to be a cash fraud page that Thunderbird does not want to enter.

So much for complete details.

Gerhard

On a sunny day (Wed, 5 Jan 2022 10:32:03 +0100) it happened Gerhard Hoffmann snipped-for-privacy@arcor.de wrote in <sr3oik$psk$ snipped-for-privacy@solani.org:

The only 'noise rejecting sampler' for a PLL I came up with years ago was just a sample and hold on a square wave derived from the local oscillator. If the sample pulse failed (due to dropouts in the medium) then no wrong sample was taken,