CD4060 Xtl Osc. Circuit
in [Design]
|
Prev: Friends important message for you
Next: Work at Home - Earn 50,000 Weekly Without Investment Its Not A Fake, 100% Earning Guarantee
From: Jim Thompson on 16 Mar 2010 00:13 On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:09:42 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:28:02 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" ><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >>On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:01:19 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:56:28 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>> >>>>On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:42:57 -0700, John Larkin >>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:20:07 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>>>><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:20:11 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 12:37:57 -0600, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>>>>>><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 09:05:24 -0800, John Larkin >>>>>>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 08:42:27 -0800, Fred Abse >>>>>>>>><excretatauris(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:28:07 -0800, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I never buy crystals for things like this. They have a high probability of >>>>>>>>>>> not working, and you wind up fiddling with capacitors and such. It's >>>>>>>>>>> easier to but a packaged, working crystal oscillator, already tuned to a >>>>>>>>>>> couple PPM, guaranteed to oscillate, for $1.50 or thereabouts. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Me, too. Amplifiers oscillate, oscillators don't ;-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>We've just started using silicon oscillators, in SOT-23 sized >>>>>>>>>packages, for things where 1% is good enough. We're using one part >>>>>>>>>that's pin strappable for 8-4-2-1 MHz. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>A seven pin SOT-23? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It's an LTC6930CMS8-8.00, in the MSOP8 package. It's basically an 8 >>>>>>>MHz oscillator with three pins that can be strapped to divide by 1 >>>>>>>through 128. >>>>>> >>>>>>That's a DFN, not SOT-23. >>>>> >>>>>We're buying the MSOP-8, as noted, which isn't a DFN. >>>>> >>>>>I did say "SOT-23 sized", which an MSOP8 pretty much is. I was at home >>>>>when I first mentioned the part and didn't have the exact LTC part >>>>>number handy. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> D/QFNs suck, though sadly there isn't often much >>>>>>choice. Since it's only a binary selection it's not all that much use, >>>>>>either. >>>>>> >>>>>>>Frequency is +-0.09% at room temp, plenty good for UARTS >>>>>>>and most timing apps. >>>>>> >>>>>>Wrong frequency for a baud-rate-generator. If you have to add logic for the >>>>>>baud-rate-generator, the binary divider chain doesn't help much. >>>>> >>>>>We use it to clock uPs and FPGAs. They most always have an internal, >>>>>programmable PLL to bump the clock up to 20 or 100 or 240 MHz, >>>>>whatever works. We're currently doing a VME module that has 64 >>>>>(sixty-four!) latching relays on board, with an FPGA doing all the >>>>>logic. An 8 MHz silicon clock is fine for that. >>>> >>>>Which makes the divider redundant. My point. >>>> >>>>>We rarely use standalone chips like uarts. Most uPs have several these >>>>>days, and we can always plop more into an FPGA. >>>> >>>>Right, which is why I questioned your statement above. .1% isn't all that >>>>great. I can't remember when I didn't already have something in the system >>>>better than that. The fewer oscillators the better. >>> >>> >>>I guess daylight savings time has made a lot of people bitchy today. >> >>Bitchy? I just don't understand your reasoning. I usually do. > >OK, the reasoning is: > >A silicon oscillator in an MSOP-8 has advantages over a crystal >oscillator in lots of applications... cost, size, power consumption. >We are now using an 8 MHz part because it works in a number of >applications. We'll probably use others in the future, too. > >John Doesn't it bother you that you're using circuits that I had, at very least, a hand in designing ?:-) Which, of my many brands, are you suing ?:-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy
From: Jim Thompson on 16 Mar 2010 01:35 On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:13:49 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:09:42 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:28:02 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:01:19 -0700, John Larkin >>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:56:28 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>>><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:42:57 -0700, John Larkin >>>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:20:07 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>>>>><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:20:11 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 12:37:57 -0600, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>>>>>>><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 09:05:24 -0800, John Larkin >>>>>>>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 08:42:27 -0800, Fred Abse >>>>>>>>>><excretatauris(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:28:07 -0800, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I never buy crystals for things like this. They have a high probability of >>>>>>>>>>>> not working, and you wind up fiddling with capacitors and such. It's >>>>>>>>>>>> easier to but a packaged, working crystal oscillator, already tuned to a >>>>>>>>>>>> couple PPM, guaranteed to oscillate, for $1.50 or thereabouts. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Me, too. Amplifiers oscillate, oscillators don't ;-) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>We've just started using silicon oscillators, in SOT-23 sized >>>>>>>>>>packages, for things where 1% is good enough. We're using one part >>>>>>>>>>that's pin strappable for 8-4-2-1 MHz. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>A seven pin SOT-23? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>It's an LTC6930CMS8-8.00, in the MSOP8 package. It's basically an 8 >>>>>>>>MHz oscillator with three pins that can be strapped to divide by 1 >>>>>>>>through 128. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>That's a DFN, not SOT-23. >>>>>> >>>>>>We're buying the MSOP-8, as noted, which isn't a DFN. >>>>>> >>>>>>I did say "SOT-23 sized", which an MSOP8 pretty much is. I was at home >>>>>>when I first mentioned the part and didn't have the exact LTC part >>>>>>number handy. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> D/QFNs suck, though sadly there isn't often much >>>>>>>choice. Since it's only a binary selection it's not all that much use, >>>>>>>either. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Frequency is +-0.09% at room temp, plenty good for UARTS >>>>>>>>and most timing apps. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Wrong frequency for a baud-rate-generator. If you have to add logic for the >>>>>>>baud-rate-generator, the binary divider chain doesn't help much. >>>>>> >>>>>>We use it to clock uPs and FPGAs. They most always have an internal, >>>>>>programmable PLL to bump the clock up to 20 or 100 or 240 MHz, >>>>>>whatever works. We're currently doing a VME module that has 64 >>>>>>(sixty-four!) latching relays on board, with an FPGA doing all the >>>>>>logic. An 8 MHz silicon clock is fine for that. >>>>> >>>>>Which makes the divider redundant. My point. >>>>> >>>>>>We rarely use standalone chips like uarts. Most uPs have several these >>>>>>days, and we can always plop more into an FPGA. >>>>> >>>>>Right, which is why I questioned your statement above. .1% isn't all that >>>>>great. I can't remember when I didn't already have something in the system >>>>>better than that. The fewer oscillators the better. >>>> >>>> >>>>I guess daylight savings time has made a lot of people bitchy today. >>> >>>Bitchy? I just don't understand your reasoning. I usually do. >> >>OK, the reasoning is: >> >>A silicon oscillator in an MSOP-8 has advantages over a crystal >>oscillator in lots of applications... cost, size, power consumption. >>We are now using an 8 MHz part because it works in a number of >>applications. We'll probably use others in the future, too. >> >>John > >Doesn't it bother you that you're using circuits that I had, at very >least, a hand in designing ?:-) > >Which, of my many brands, are you suing ?:-) > > ...Jim Thompson Maybe you're "suing", but I meant "using" :-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy
From: Randomly on 16 Mar 2010 02:22 >For the CD4060 they recommend even higher values, page 3: > >http://www.fairchildsemi.com/ds/CD%2FCD4060BC.pdf The values in that data sheet are for a 32Khz tuning fork cut crystal. Not the same at all as the 2.048 Mhz AT cut crystals in the op. I'd try something like 22pf for the caps, 1-10 Meg for the DC feedback resistor, and 47-100K for the drive limiter resistor. --------------------------------------- Posted through http://www.Electronics-Related.com
From: JosephKK on 16 Mar 2010 11:10 On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 13:15:43 -0600, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 13:53:23 -0500, "Martin Riddle" <martin_rid(a)verizon.net> >wrote: > >> >> >><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message >>news:6qmnp598tm30hlmvgvdne65ps3msbb8q3r(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 09:05:24 -0800, John Larkin >>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 08:42:27 -0800, Fred Abse >>>><excretatauris(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:28:07 -0800, John Larkin wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I never buy crystals for things like this. They have a high >>>>>> probability of >>>>>> not working, and you wind up fiddling with capacitors and such. >>>>>> It's >>>>>> easier to but a packaged, working crystal oscillator, already tuned >>>>>> to a >>>>>> couple PPM, guaranteed to oscillate, for $1.50 or thereabouts. >>>>> >>>>>Me, too. Amplifiers oscillate, oscillators don't ;-) >>>> >>>>We've just started using silicon oscillators, in SOT-23 sized >>>>packages, for things where 1% is good enough. We're using one part >>>>that's pin strappable for 8-4-2-1 MHz. >>> >>> A seven pin SOT-23? >> >>I think its this Linear part >><http://cds.linear.com/docs/Datasheet/6900fa.pdf> >>There are others tho. > >Neat (but sloppy - 1/5% to 2% error). That's a trinary input (1/10/100) in a >SOT-23-5. John was suggesting 1-2-4-8 binary inputs. I've never seen a >SOT-23-7. Up to six pins on a "SOT-23" I can understand, but where does the >seventh pin go? As a quick guess, perhaps a thermal/power pad?
From: Joerg on 16 Mar 2010 16:32
John Larkin wrote: > On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:28:02 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" > <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:01:19 -0700, John Larkin >> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:56:28 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>> <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:42:57 -0700, John Larkin >>>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:20:07 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>>>> <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:20:11 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 12:37:57 -0600, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>>>>>> <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 09:05:24 -0800, John Larkin >>>>>>>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 08:42:27 -0800, Fred Abse >>>>>>>>> <excretatauris(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:28:07 -0800, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I never buy crystals for things like this. They have a high probability of >>>>>>>>>>> not working, and you wind up fiddling with capacitors and such. It's >>>>>>>>>>> easier to but a packaged, working crystal oscillator, already tuned to a >>>>>>>>>>> couple PPM, guaranteed to oscillate, for $1.50 or thereabouts. >>>>>>>>>> Me, too. Amplifiers oscillate, oscillators don't ;-) >>>>>>>>> We've just started using silicon oscillators, in SOT-23 sized >>>>>>>>> packages, for things where 1% is good enough. We're using one part >>>>>>>>> that's pin strappable for 8-4-2-1 MHz. >>>>>>>> A seven pin SOT-23? >>>>>>> It's an LTC6930CMS8-8.00, in the MSOP8 package. It's basically an 8 >>>>>>> MHz oscillator with three pins that can be strapped to divide by 1 >>>>>>> through 128. >>>>>> That's a DFN, not SOT-23. >>>>> We're buying the MSOP-8, as noted, which isn't a DFN. >>>>> >>>>> I did say "SOT-23 sized", which an MSOP8 pretty much is. I was at home >>>>> when I first mentioned the part and didn't have the exact LTC part >>>>> number handy. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> D/QFNs suck, though sadly there isn't often much >>>>>> choice. Since it's only a binary selection it's not all that much use, >>>>>> either. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Frequency is +-0.09% at room temp, plenty good for UARTS >>>>>>> and most timing apps. >>>>>> Wrong frequency for a baud-rate-generator. If you have to add logic for the >>>>>> baud-rate-generator, the binary divider chain doesn't help much. >>>>> We use it to clock uPs and FPGAs. They most always have an internal, >>>>> programmable PLL to bump the clock up to 20 or 100 or 240 MHz, >>>>> whatever works. We're currently doing a VME module that has 64 >>>>> (sixty-four!) latching relays on board, with an FPGA doing all the >>>>> logic. An 8 MHz silicon clock is fine for that. >>>> Which makes the divider redundant. My point. >>>> >>>>> We rarely use standalone chips like uarts. Most uPs have several these >>>>> days, and we can always plop more into an FPGA. >>>> Right, which is why I questioned your statement above. .1% isn't all that >>>> great. I can't remember when I didn't already have something in the system >>>> better than that. The fewer oscillators the better. >>> >>> I guess daylight savings time has made a lot of people bitchy today. >> Bitchy? I just don't understand your reasoning. I usually do. > > OK, the reasoning is: > > A silicon oscillator in an MSOP-8 has advantages over a crystal > oscillator in lots of applications... cost, size, power consumption. > We are now using an 8 MHz part because it works in a number of > applications. We'll probably use others in the future, too. > Cost? Silicon oscillators are around a buck fifty while these are less than a buck: http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=535-9754-2-ND http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=535-10066-2-ND -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. |