Re: Can PLL Freq Error be zero?

From: Genome (ilike_spam_at_yahoo.co.uk)
Date: 03/17/05 

Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:44:33 GMT

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:jkvj311eeujkg4gu2nqctaqdlems2nusmc@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:03:50 GMT, "Genome" <ilike_spam@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message
> >news:rnmj3195n36dh5cqhcrgkimbmkjoef3m2p@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:44:31 GMT, "Genome" <ilike_spam@yahoo.co.uk>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> But sure, if the divider delay is significant, then it's significant.
> >>
> >> Is that better?
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >>
> >
> >OK.
> >
> >Being thick I miss the meaning of,
> >
> >U' = U / S
> >
> >and
> >
> >W' = W / S
> >
> >DNA
> >
> >
>
> Oh. I meant that the 'new' VCO frequency (after substituting the black
> box) is the old one scaled by the divisor thing, and likewise W' is
> the effective new VCO constant (Hz/volt or whatever) after the
> substitution. It's just like wrapping a dotted line around the
> VCO+divider and replacing the whole mess with a slower, scaled VCO.
>
> I'm sort of used to a notation where
>
> G' is the new/scaled/denormalized/fudged value of G
>
> which is what the filter folks do. But maybe that's not an accepted
> convention.
>
>
> John
>

Oh, so S is the number by which things are divided, the divisor, and has
nothing to do with that Laplace stuff?

DNA