I wonder, what's the best oscillator scheme to use with watch crystals(32kHz) to get optimal stability & precision? (provided that temperature is stable, digital correction is out of this topic).

Typical solution is pierce oscillator, but what's the optimal swing/voltage? I have a feeling that sine-wave generator should put less stress on the crystal.

So, what's the best & less stressful oscillator scheme for watch crystals?

That is for digital clock, so long-term stability is important (crystal will be temperature-stabilized & corrected for aging).

  • \$\begingroup\$ this seems like a heavy opinion question. What is better? What is optimal stability & precision? What defines best and least stressful? \$\endgroup\$ – Kortuk Jul 17 '11 at 1:59
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Kortuk Well, this seems straightforward to me: The more stability the better. I guess driving crystal at excessive swing or improper load or improper waveform might cause it to age faster. \$\endgroup\$ – BarsMonster Jul 18 '11 at 1:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ so cost plays no part? the best stability and life and we are golden? \$\endgroup\$ – Kortuk Jul 18 '11 at 7:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yes, as long as we are not going over 1000$ in parts :-D \$\endgroup\$ – BarsMonster Jul 18 '11 at 7:56
  • \$\begingroup\$ With that kind of budget ($1000), you can do some fancy things. Temperature control is well within range. Can you get a used HP cesmium clock for that money? \$\endgroup\$ – Olin Lathrop Jul 18 '11 at 12:37

You don't say what the device this is going into. However, if there will be a micrcocontroller present then you likely don't need a separate crystal driver at all. Many microcontrollers (and just about all Microchip PICs) come with low power watch crystal oscillators. You add the crystal and two caps, and the micro does the rest.

Yes, driving the crystal with a sine wave is the best for the crystal.

  • \$\begingroup\$ That is for digital clock, so there will be micro. The question is can it be done better than micro. \$\endgroup\$ – BarsMonster Jul 16 '11 at 22:50
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Bars: "Better" is in relation to some spec. If better includes low parts count, then probably no. \$\endgroup\$ – Olin Lathrop Jul 16 '11 at 23:02
  • \$\begingroup\$ Surely, it's hard to do better than 0. Better = better long-term stability, less stress on the crystal \$\endgroup\$ – BarsMonster Jul 18 '11 at 1:21

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.