Timeline for Phase Shift Oscillator | Theoretical Frequency Mismatch
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 26, 2019 at 3:27 | vote | accept | OPET | ||
| Oct 23, 2019 at 13:57 | comment | added | TimWescott | It's just that circuits are less predictable at high frequencies, with more parasitic components having an effect. A low-pass network just naturally cuts off the possibility of oscillation or noise amplification at high frequencies. | |
| Oct 23, 2019 at 8:28 | comment | added | OPET | @analogsystemsrf Almost certainly! I expect noise figure calculations to be the main concern in the next iteration. For now, my computer engineers are eager to begin flushing out their communications protocols, so I've opted to throw together a "quick and dirty" 4QAM channel across a handful of subcarriers - an insufficient bitrate for later data transfers, but enough to work through basic handshakes and such. I (optimistically) expect our receiver to distinguish between 2 distinct phase states in the presence of this noise for now | |
| Oct 23, 2019 at 8:22 | comment | added | OPET | @TimWescott An interesting suggestion; under what circumstances would you expect a lowpass network-based oscillator to be more stable? | |
| Oct 23, 2019 at 4:14 | comment | added | analogsystemsrf | you will have high phase noise. Will that effect the usefulness of your transceiver? | |
| Oct 23, 2019 at 0:48 | comment | added | TimWescott | Your oscillator may be more reliable if you use a low-pass network instead of a high-pass one. That's probably not what's causing your current difficulty, though. | |
| Oct 22, 2019 at 23:16 | answer | added | EinarA | timeline score: 0 | |
| Oct 22, 2019 at 22:17 | history | edited | OPET | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 60 characters in body
|
| Oct 22, 2019 at 21:45 | review | First posts | |||
| Oct 23, 2019 at 6:44 | |||||
| Oct 22, 2019 at 21:44 | history | asked | OPET | CC BY-SA 4.0 |