[time-nuts] Thermal impact on OCXO
Bob Camp
kb8tq at n1k.org
Thu Nov 17 16:19:24 EST 2016
Hi
The advent of welded packages for OCXO’s started to make the “blowtorch” approach obsolete back in the 1990’s. The
real problem, even backing in the 1980’s is that there is no market for rejects. The only high value part in an OCXO is the
crystal. It is the cause of the performance reject, so any “repair” is more expensive than the parts you save.
Bob
> On Nov 17, 2016, at 1:15 PM, Bob Stewart <bob at evoria.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Bob,
> said: "Most (> 99%) OCXO’s are made to custom specs for large OEM’s. The sort
> consists of “ship these” and “send these to the crusher”. Needless to say,
> the emphasis is on a process that throws out as few as possible. "
>
> We've seen a serious improvement in manufacturing yields at close tolerances for small components. IOW, they can make gazillions of 1% resistors and caps today, whereas back when I was born they had to do some serious sorting to just get a few. Did this improvement in manufacturing technique carry over to OCXOs such that the units we see on ebay benefited from improved manufacturing ability, or was sorting still a major part of getting usable yield when they were made? This, of course, avoids the impact of using a blowtorch to remove them from a board that has been removed from a larger board with a bandsaw.
>
> thanks,
> Bob - AE6RV
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> AE6RV.com
>
> GFS GPSDO list:
> groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/GFS-GPSDOs/info
>
> From: Bob Camp <kb8tq at n1k.org>
> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement <time-nuts at febo.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 11:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Thermal impact on OCXO
>
> Hi
>
>
> Most (> 99%) OCXO’s are made to custom specs for large OEM’s. The sort
> consists of “ship these” and “send these to the crusher”. Needless to say,
> the emphasis is on a process that throws out as few as possible.
>
> Bob
>
>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Bob Camp <kb8tq at n1k.org> wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> The issue in fitting over short time periods is that the noise is very much
>>> *not* gaussian. You have effects from things like temperature and warmup
>>> that *do* have trends to them. They will lead you off into all sorts of dark
>>> holes fit wise.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>>> On Nov 16, 2016, at 6:48 PM, Scott Stobbe <scott.j.stobbe at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A few different plots. I didn't have an intuitive feel for what the B
>>>> coefficient in log term looks like on a plot, so that is the first
>>>> plot. The same aging curve is plotted three times, with the exception
>>>> of the B coefficient being scaled by 1/10, 1, 10 respectively. In hand
>>>> waving terms, it does have an enormous impact during the first 30 days
>>>> (or until Bt >>1), but from then on, it is just an additive offset.
>>>>
>>>> The next 4 plots are just sample fits with noise added.
>>>>
>>>> Finally the 6th plot is of just the first 30 days, the data would seem
>>>> to be cleaner than what was shown as a sample in the paper, but the
>>>> stability of the B coefficient in 10 monte-carlo runs is not great.
>>>> But when plotted over a year the results are minimal.
>>>>
>>>> A1 A2 A3
>>>> 0.022914 6.8459 0.00016743
>>>> 0.022932 6.6702 0.00058768
>>>> 0.023206 5.7969 0.0026103
>>>> 0.023219 4.3127 0.0093793
>>>> 0.02374 2.8309 0.016838
>>>> 0.023119 5.0214 0.0061557
>>>> 0.023054 5.8399 0.0031886
>>>> 0.022782 9.8582 -0.0074089
>>>> 0.023279 3.7392 0.012161
>>>> 0.02345 4.1062 0.0095448
>>>>
>>>> The only other thing to point out from this, is that the A2 and A3
>>>> coefficients are highly non-orthogonal, as A2 increases, A3 drops to
>>>> make up the difference.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 7:38 AM, Bob Camp <kb8tq at n1k.org> wrote:
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> The original introduction of 55310 written by a couple of *very* good guys:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1987papers/Vol%2019_16.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> A fairly current copy of 55310:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://nepp.nasa.gov/DocUploads/1F3275A6-9140-4C0C-864542DBF16EB1CC/MIL-PRF-55310.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> The “right” equation is on page 47. It’s the “Bt+1” in the log that messes up the fit. If you fit it without
>>>>> the +1, the fit is *much* easier to do. The result isn’t quite right.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 15, 2016, at 11:58 PM, Scott Stobbe <scott.j.stobbe at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Bob,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you recall if you fitted with true ordinary least squares, or fit with a
>>>>>> recursive/iterative approach in a least squares sense. If the aging curve
>>>>>> is linearizable, it isn't jumping out at me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the model was hypothetically:
>>>>>> F = A ln( B*t )
>>>>>>
>>>>>> F = A ln(t) + Aln(B)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> which could easily be fit as
>>>>>> F = A' X + B', where X = ln(t)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would appear stable32 uses an iterative approach for the non-linear
>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "y(t) = a·ln(bt+1), where slope = y'(t) = ab/(bt+1) Determining the
>>>>>> nonlinear log fit coefficients requires an iterative procedure. This
>>>>>> involves setting b to an in initial value, linearizing the equation,
>>>>>> solving for the other coefficients and the sum of the squared error,
>>>>>> comparing that with an error criterion, and iterating until a satisfactory
>>>>>> result is found. The key aspects to this numerical analysis process are
>>>>>> establishing a satisfactory iteration factor and error criterion to assure
>>>>>> both convergence and small residuals."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.stable32.com/Curve%20Fitting%20Features%20in%20Stable32.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not sure what others do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 7:15 AM, Bob Camp <kb8tq at n1k.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you already *have* data over a year (or multiple years) the fit is
>>>>>>> fairly easy.
>>>>>>> If you try to do this with data from a few days or less, the whole fit
>>>>>>> process is
>>>>>>> a bit crazy. You also have *multiple* time constants involved on most
>>>>>>> OCXO’s.
>>>>>>> The result is that an earlier fit will have a shorter time constant (and
>>>>>>> will ultimately
>>>>>>> die out). You may not be able to separate the 25 year curve from the 3
>>>>>>> month
>>>>>>> curve with only 3 months of data.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Nov 13, 2016, at 10:59 PM, Scott Stobbe <scott.j.stobbe at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Scott Stobbe <scott.j.stobbe at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here is a sample data point taken from http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptt
>>>>>>>>> i/1987papers/Vol%2019_16.pdf; the first that showed up on a google
>>>>>>> search.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Year Aging [PPB] dF/dt [PPT/Day]
>>>>>>>>> 1 180.51 63.884
>>>>>>>>> 2 196.65 31.93
>>>>>>>>> 5 218 12.769
>>>>>>>>> 9 231.69 7.0934
>>>>>>>>> 10 234.15 6.384
>>>>>>>>> 25 255.5 2.5535
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you have a set of coefficients you believe to be representative of
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>> OCXO, we can give those a go.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I thought I would come back to this sample data point and see what the
>>>>>>>> impact of using a 1st order estimate for the log function would entail.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The coefficients supplied in the paper are the following:
>>>>>>>> A1 = 0.0233;
>>>>>>>> A2 = 4.4583;
>>>>>>>> A3 = 0.0082;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> F = A1*ln( A2*x +1 ) + A3; where x is time in days
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fdot = (A1*A2)/(A2*x +1)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fdotdot = -(A1*A2^2)/(A2*x +1)^2
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When x is large, the derivatives are approximately:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fdot ~= A1/x
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fdotdot ~= -A1/x^2
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's worth noting that, just as it is visually apparent from the graph,
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> aging becomes more linear as time progresses, the second, third, ...,
>>>>>>>> derivatives drop off faster than the first.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A first order taylor series of the aging would be,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> T1(x, xo) = A3 + A1*ln(A2*xo + 1) + (A1*A2)(x - xo)/(A2*xo +1) + O(
>>>>>>>> (x-xo)^2 )
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The remainder (error) term for a 1st order taylor series of F would be:
>>>>>>>> R(x) = Fdotdot(c) * ((x-xo)^2)/(2!); where c is some value between
>>>>>>> x
>>>>>>>> and xo.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, take for example, forward projecting the drift one day after the
>>>>>>> 365th
>>>>>>>> day using a first order model,
>>>>>>>> xo = 365
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fdot(365) = 63.796 PPT/day, alternatively the approximate derivative
>>>>>>>> is: 63.836 PPT/day
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> |R(366)| = 0.087339 PPT (more than likely, this is no where near 1
>>>>>>>> DAC LSB on the EFC line)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> More than likely you wouldn't try to project 7 days out, but considering
>>>>>>>> only the generalized effects of aging, the error would be:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> |R(372)| = 4.282 PPT (So on the 7th day, a 1st order model starts to
>>>>>>>> degrade into a few DAC LSB)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the case of forward projecting aging for one day, using a 1st order
>>>>>>>> model versus the full logarithmic model, would likely be a discrepancy of
>>>>>>>> less than one dac LSB.
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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.
>>>> <AGING_30DAYS_0p5ppb.png><AGING_30DAYS_0p5ppb_simple.png><AGING_30DAYS_0p5ppb_zoomin.png><AGING_30DAYS_5ppb.png><AGING_30DAYS_5ppb_simple.png><AGING_SCALE_A2.png>_______________________________________________
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>> <10percentResistor.png>_______________________________________________
>> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
mailing list