Bob posted >The gotcha is that the injection gain is phase angle dependent. So what? and it is also dependant on a whole bunch of other stuff, amplitude being a major one. And the gotcha you to your gotcha is that the phase difference in the TPLL is fixed at very close at 90 deg. (zero on the PD with in uv, & a few femtoseconds variation) Just to put this subject to rest, I tried to measure the ratio of EFC gain to injection lock gain at near zero PD output at the nominal signal levels I'm using. The problem is this is analog. Analog unlike digital has some limits of about 1 PPM (1e-6) and 50 nv (5e-8) The IL ratio seems to be below 1e-6 so I have been unable to measure the ratio. The effect seems to be below the noise level of the reference Osc so that also makes it a bit hard to get a good number. Anyone have any suggestion how to go about measuring an effect this low? Until I can measure the IL effect more accurately, I'm just going to have go with the more general statement that the TPLL method is limited by the Reference Osc. If the reference osc or DUT Injection Lock sensitivity is more than say around 1e5 times the 10811, It is best to add an external buffer to be save to keep the gain errors below 10%. ws ****************** [time-nuts] Advantages & Disadvantages of the TPLL Method Bob Camp lists at rtty.us Wed Jun 16 11:34:27 UTC 2010 Hi The gotcha is that the injection gain is phase angle dependent. Bob ****************** On Jun 16, 2010, at 1:57 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote: > On 06/16/2010 05:45 AM, Charles P. Steinmetz wrote: >> Warren wrote: >> >>> Charles posted: >>>> but the locked frequency will be different from both oscillators' >>>> free-running frequency and >>>> the EFC will not correctly indicate the test oscillator deviation >>>> because it isn't the only control input in the system. >>> >>> Good point and No argument (except for the deviation part) >>> Because the EFC is the only control input THAT IS VARYING. >> >> No, it's not. The strength with which each oscillator pulls on the other >> also varies as the equilibrium frequency (the result of all three >> recursive control inputs) moves around relative to the two instantaneous >> free-running frequencies. How much EFC is required depends, in part, on >> the strength of the pulling. There are three varying inputs. >> >> Magnus suggested that the effect of injection locking may be enough >> smaller than the EFC input that it has little practical significance. >> That may be so, but when dealing with measurement accuracy in the >> hundreds or tens ot ppt, this needs to be verified by the results of >> carefully constructed experiments and hopefully also supported by >> mathematical analysis. > > What you get is a scale error. Consider that you have an amplifier gain of > 1000 and the injection locking provide a gain of 1, that will result in > actual gain of 1001 and the gain error on the EFC will become 1000/1001. > Considering that Allan deviation estimation has problem of its own, this > scale error is not significant. What you do need to check is that the > relationship between intended gain and injection gain is sufficiently > different. Since oscillator frequency from EFC may not be completely > correct, we already want calibration of that scale factor (K_O) and the > gain error due to injection locking would be included into that correction > factor. > > So, sufficiently small amount of injection locking gain will change the > apparent EFC coefficient K_O [Rad/sV] on which the scale of TPLL frequency > measurements depends. The fractional frequency observed is > > y(t) = 2*pi*f_0 / K_O,eff EFC(t) > > Cheers, > Magnus >

Hi If the oscillator you have happens to injection lock at 90 degrees, or quite near it, then that's not going to help. If the oscillator you have likes to lock at 21 degrees then it will help you out. The angle varies device to device. Bob -----Original Message----- From: time-nuts-bounces@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-bounces@febo.com] On Behalf Of WarrenS Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 11:46 AM To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Advantages & Disadvantages of the TPLL Method Bob posted >The gotcha is that the injection gain is phase angle dependent. So what? and it is also dependant on a whole bunch of other stuff, amplitude being a major one. And the gotcha you to your gotcha is that the phase difference in the TPLL is fixed at very close at 90 deg. (zero on the PD with in uv, & a few femtoseconds variation) Just to put this subject to rest, I tried to measure the ratio of EFC gain to injection lock gain at near zero PD output at the nominal signal levels I'm using. The problem is this is analog. Analog unlike digital has some limits of about 1 PPM (1e-6) and 50 nv (5e-8) The IL ratio seems to be below 1e-6 so I have been unable to measure the ratio. The effect seems to be below the noise level of the reference Osc so that also makes it a bit hard to get a good number. Anyone have any suggestion how to go about measuring an effect this low? Until I can measure the IL effect more accurately, I'm just going to have go with the more general statement that the TPLL method is limited by the Reference Osc. If the reference osc or DUT Injection Lock sensitivity is more than say around 1e5 times the 10811, It is best to add an external buffer to be save to keep the gain errors below 10%. ws ****************** [time-nuts] Advantages & Disadvantages of the TPLL Method Bob Camp lists at rtty.us Wed Jun 16 11:34:27 UTC 2010 Hi The gotcha is that the injection gain is phase angle dependent. Bob ****************** On Jun 16, 2010, at 1:57 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote: > On 06/16/2010 05:45 AM, Charles P. Steinmetz wrote: >> Warren wrote: >> >>> Charles posted: >>>> but the locked frequency will be different from both oscillators' >>>> free-running frequency and >>>> the EFC will not correctly indicate the test oscillator deviation >>>> because it isn't the only control input in the system. >>> >>> Good point and No argument (except for the deviation part) >>> Because the EFC is the only control input THAT IS VARYING. >> >> No, it's not. The strength with which each oscillator pulls on the other >> also varies as the equilibrium frequency (the result of all three >> recursive control inputs) moves around relative to the two instantaneous >> free-running frequencies. How much EFC is required depends, in part, on >> the strength of the pulling. There are three varying inputs. >> >> Magnus suggested that the effect of injection locking may be enough >> smaller than the EFC input that it has little practical significance. >> That may be so, but when dealing with measurement accuracy in the >> hundreds or tens ot ppt, this needs to be verified by the results of >> carefully constructed experiments and hopefully also supported by >> mathematical analysis. > > What you get is a scale error. Consider that you have an amplifier gain of > 1000 and the injection locking provide a gain of 1, that will result in > actual gain of 1001 and the gain error on the EFC will become 1000/1001. > Considering that Allan deviation estimation has problem of its own, this > scale error is not significant. What you do need to check is that the > relationship between intended gain and injection gain is sufficiently > different. Since oscillator frequency from EFC may not be completely > correct, we already want calibration of that scale factor (K_O) and the > gain error due to injection locking would be included into that correction > factor. > > So, sufficiently small amount of injection locking gain will change the > apparent EFC coefficient K_O [Rad/sV] on which the scale of TPLL frequency > measurements depends. The fractional frequency observed is > > y(t) = 2*pi*f_0 / K_O,eff EFC(t) > > Cheers, > Magnus > _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.

On 06/16/2010 06:16 PM, Bob Camp wrote: > Hi > > If the oscillator you have happens to injection lock at 90 degrees, or quite > near it, then that's not going to help. If the oscillator you have likes to > lock at 21 degrees then it will help you out. The angle varies device to > device. If the injection lock gain is significantly less than the intended loop gain, then it may have any angle without significant influence. If these gains is close, it matters and if the injection lock gain is larger, it will dominate and care much be taken to ensure stable phase in order to have a stable gain. A tight PLL has a fairly high gain, so if the injection lock gain is sufficiently low (should always be verified!) then the effect should be low enought. The Wolaver analysis assumes a phase angle, so the model includes the angle-effect. Cheers, Magnus