editor's blog
Subscribe Now

Comparing Oscillator Temp Compensation

MEMS oscillators are making a serious challenge to quartz these days. We looked at Sand 9’s approach recently, but as I thumbed back through other recent announcements, I came back across one that, in retrospect, had some relevant bits to discuss.

Silicon Labs’ earlier announcement focused on the CMOS+MEMS aspect of their work. At the time, I didn’t see anything I could add to the discussion, so I let the announcement stand on its own. But in light of some of the issues I covered in Sand 9’s release, I thought there were some things to come back to on the Silicon Labs story – some of which weren’t immediately apparent in their release.

This relates to temperature compensation, which seems to be the number one concern with these devices. Yes, everyone tries to compensate with circuitry, but if you can minimize the raw temperature effects, then the compensation is easier.

We looked at the stack that Sand 9 built to do this – silicon and oxide having opposing temperature coefficients and therefore physically compensating for each other. Well, Silicon Labs does something similar but not identical.

They use SiGe as the active material for the resonator, but they back it with SiO2, which again opposes the temperature characteristics of the SiGe.

The other subtlety here relates to the CMOS processing aspect, although again, it seems to be two different ways of accomplishing the same thing. Sand 9 discussed how having the compensation ASIC in the same package was important so that the ASIC was experiencing the same temperature as the sensor it was compensating.

With the Silicon Labs approach, this happens as a direct result of combining MEMS and CMOS on the same die: The compensation circuitry isn’t just next to the sensor; it’s on the same die as the sensor. So again, it experiences the same temperatures as the sensor. It’s probably even closer, although at some point, if you start arguing about hot spots on the actual die, you could question whether mere monolithic integration guarantees better compensation. It depends on where things are on the die and how “hot” the circuits are. So it remains to be proven whether monolithic compensation is practically any more effective than a well-engineered die-by-die solution.

You can find more on Silicon Labs’ process here.

Leave a Reply

featured blogs
Mar 27, 2020
[From the last episode: We saw how pointers are an important kind of variable, representing data whose location we can'€™t predict in advance.] We saw last time that pointers are used to store the addresses of data stored in memory space that'€™s allocated while the progr...
Mar 27, 2020
Have you ever paused to consider how temptingly tasty electronic circuits would look if their components and copper tracks were mounted on a glass substrate?...
Mar 27, 2020
Solar Power While the cost and benefits of solar power can and have been debated, there'€™s one point that cannot be debated:  the solar energy sector continues to grow.   The solar energy sector has grown 68% over the last decade, and the cost of solar infrastruc...
Mar 26, 2020
Late last week you may have seen the open letter  from our CEO, Tony Hemmelgarn, laying out the steps that Siemens Digital Industries Software is taking to support our customers during the COVID-19 global crisis. All of us are getting use to the “new normal” ...

Featured Video

LE Audio Over Bluetooth with DesignWare Bluetooth IP

Sponsored by Synopsys

The video shows the new LE Audio using Synopsys® DesignWare® Bluetooth 5.2 PHY IP and Link Layer IP with isochronous channels, and ARC® Data Fusion IP Subsystem with ARC EM9D Processor, running the LC3 codec supporting LE Audio.

Click here for more information about Bluetooth, Thread, Zigbee IP Solutions