YES1 - - Tips About How Along with Precisely Why We Can Easily Reap Some Benefits Out Of This

Table 2 Average efficiency YES1 of gyroscopic mounting for steady state load. Gyroscopic mounting efficiency is as shown in Figure 12 and Figure 13 and summarized in Table 3 and Table 4 for the most probable crystals. Figure 12 Comparison between steady state load-induced frequency deviation and Allan safety margin. (a) Fixed oscillator; (b) Gyroscopic mounting. Figure 13 Comparison between steady state load-induced phase noise and Allan safety margin. (a) Fixed oscillator; (b) Gyroscopic mounting. Table 3 Analysis of gyroscopic mounting efficiency for crystal with |��| = 2.6��. Table 4 Analysis of gyroscopic mounting efficiency for crystal with |��| = 38��. According to Figure 12 and Figure 13 and Table 3, for a statistically minimum �� value i.e., �� = 2.6��, gyroscopic mounting has a great effect on frequency deviation which is reduced near the Allan deviation safety margin (10?4 Hz). Only when the �� angle is very close to 90��, this mounting causes negligible drawbacks in oscillator output, such that frequency deviation is still less than the Allan deviation (10?4 Hz). Gyroscopic mounting shows its great effects on phase noise for �� selleck chemicals llc (10?4 Hz). Its drawback on frequency deviation appears only for �� angles too close to 90��. The best effects on phase noise appear for �� PR-171 mw surface with any angle 0��