[time-nuts] New topics (was Re: He is a Time-Nut Troublemaker....)
John Ackermann N8UR
jra at febo.com
Tue Dec 23 17:57:59 UTC 2008
Magnus Danielson wrote:
> This diffrential locking technique could be applied to atomic standards,
> but then naturally require much improved solution than simple
> oscillators. The diffrential locking technique does not magically solve
> issues that is typically common mode, such as temperature dependence. It
> can however even out individual properties like noise and systematic
> drift to some extent. It essentially runs the oscillators as a common
> constellation and attempts to achieve the average improvements of those
> oscillators in an interlocked fashion. In its simplicity it will do
> unweighed averaging. It is fairly easy to do weighed averaging by
> individualizing the feedback gain to the respective oscillators. Further
> refinements would individualize the proportional and integrate feedback
> terms, but as always, the simplicity forms a limit.
Assuming that the atomic standards are correct for some tolerance of
"correct", I'm not sure why you would need to use a differential locking
scheme (or anything else that moves one oscillator versus the other) --
if you simply mix the two signals together you get a sum that contains
both signals. Apart from redundancy (what if one unit fails), why not
just use that sum to drive the clock?
John
More information about the time-nuts
mailing list