What Causes Frequency and Amplitude Instability in Oscillating Crystals?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AStaunton
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Frequency instability in oscillating crystals can cause the signal to drift across the oscilloscope screen, while amplitude instability may result in small variations in the waveform's amplitude. The observed Gibb's phenomenon and rounded edges of the square wave indicate that the crystal oscillator output is not a perfect square wave, which is expected. The use of probes with low inductance is crucial, as higher inductance can introduce artifacts like ringing in the waveform. Amplitude variations might be more noticeable in specific oscilloscope modes, such as infinite persistence. Understanding these instabilities is essential for accurate signal analysis in lab settings.
AStaunton
Messages
100
Reaction score
1
Hi there

I had a lab session today in which a square wave was synthesised using an oscillating crystal...this signal was fed into an oscilliscope and so various features of the square wave could be observed:

Gibb's phenomenon, the rising edge having a 'rounded' corner, the top part of the square wave (which should theoretically be perfectly flat) had an oscillating pattern that resembled a decaying sinusoid etc.

My teacher sai that the crystal was generating a stable fraquency (at least I think that's what he said!) and if that wasn't the case it would be called frequency instability and the effect that this would have on the signal being displayed by the osc. scope is that the signal would keep drifting across the screen...

He also mentioned amplitude instability but I did not follow what he said there...

I would be very grateful if somebody could explain these two terms to me (hopefully the above account is coherent enough!).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
AStaunton said:
Hi there

I had a lab session today in which a square wave was synthesised using an oscillating crystal...this signal was fed into an oscilliscope and so various features of the square wave could be observed:

Gibb's phenomenon, the rising edge having a 'rounded' corner, the top part of the square wave (which should theoretically be perfectly flat) had an oscillating pattern that resembled a decaying sinusoid etc.

My teacher sai that the crystal was generating a stable fraquency (at least I think that's what he said!) and if that wasn't the case it would be called frequency instability and the effect that this would have on the signal being displayed by the osc. scope is that the signal would keep drifting across the screen...

He also mentioned amplitude instability but I did not follow what he said there...

I would be very grateful if somebody could explain these two terms to me (hopefully the above account is coherent enough!).

A crystal oscillator should not directly have a square wave at the crysta. You can square up the output of the oscillator with a buffer, but the waveforms at the crystal should be fairly rounded.

What kind of probe were you using to see the waveforms? Were you using Z-lead probes, or some other probe that has low inductance (no ground wire lead and clip)? If not, some of the ripples you saw could just be from the probe inductance ringing (artifact).

Frequency instability will not generally be visible as the waveform rolling by -- you were using Normal trigger on the 'scope, right?

Amplitude instability could be visible as small amplitude variations as you watch the waveform. If the frequency and amplitude instabilities are large enough, you could see them using "infinite persistance" mode on the 'scope (the integrated waveforms blur some).
 
the probe I used had ground clip, I think it had a 10\Ohm resistance in it too, why is this resistance necessary?

Also the ringing effect seen on the upper part of the square wave, that is caused by the act of measuring the signal? Can you expand a little more on that please?
 
meant to say:

10 OHM resistance in the probe
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top