Unruh wrote:
David J Taylor
david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid writes:
Unruh wrote in message news:iebhm.50125$db2.41...@edtnps83...
[]
MSF?
See:
http://www.npl.co.uk/science-technology/time-frequency/time/products-and-services/msf-radio-time-signal
UK
Maarten Wiltink wrote:
Unruh unruh-s...@physics.ubc.ca wrote in message
news:iebhm.50125$db2.41...@edtnps83...
[...]
The problem is that I have no idea what the accuracy of any of those
items is. YOur ISP's timesever may be a stratum 7 getting time from
a bunch of bozos. Or itmay be stratum
Unruh wrote:
David J Taylor
david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid writes:
At source, it's recently been within about 10 microseconds:
Sorry, at 10usec, the distance away of the transmitter must be less than 3 km.
At *source*, the distance to the transmitter must
David J Taylor david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid
writes:
Thanks, David, David and Jan. A few milliseconds is what I had expected,
so if you are on a consumer line, what implications does that have for
unruh's comment?
I've been plotting the offset reported by ntpq
Unruh wrote:
John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com writes:
Bill Unruh writes:
Sorry, at 10usec, the distance away of the transmitter must be less than 3
km.
10usec at the transmitter.
Also your system needs to see the start of the tone to 10usec which
means that the tone would have to be
Thanks for your answers. Yes the RFC-1305 is obselete, but they are
using it for the servers where I work right now. The problem just now
is to figure out why a SNTP(RFC2030)-client aren't able to synchronize
to a NTP-server with RFC-1305.
I agree with you that the second alternative must be a
Sorry, there's a change in the server configuration that i omitted
before.
So, I'm trying to figure out how to get manycast working, so I set up
3
computers to be clients:
disable auth
enable bclient
tos orphan 8
manycastclient 224.0.1.1
manycastserver 224.0.1.1
And one computer to be a server:
I'm trying to figure out how to get manycast working, so I set up 3
computers to be clients:
disable auth
enable bclient
tos orphan 8
manycastclient 224.0.1.1
manycastserver 224.0.1.1
And one computer to be a server:
disable auth
manycastclient 224.0.1.1
manycastserver 224.0.1.1
server
On 11/02/09 07:47, Evandro Menezes wrote:
Sorry, there's a change in the server configuration that i omitted
before.
So, I'm trying to figure out how to get manycast working, so I set up
3
computers to be clients:
disable auth
enable bclient
tos orphan 8
manycastclient 224.0.1.1
On 2009-11-02, Evandro Menezes evan...@mailinator.com wrote:
So, I'm trying to figure out how to get manycast working, so I set up
3 computers to be clients:
I suggest that you start with the server and _one_ client. Once you have
that working then you can implement your manycast-orphan cloud.
David Malone wrote:
The Rugby unit was built by Ian Dowse, and is described here:
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dwmalone/time/rugby.html
This is a simple AM detector for the slow code (I don't know if the fast
code is still transmitted). It doesn't phase lock onto the carrier.
David Woolley wrote:
David Malone wrote:
The Rugby unit was built by Ian Dowse, and is described here:
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dwmalone/time/rugby.html
This is a simple AM detector for the slow code (I don't know if the fast
code is still transmitted). It doesn't phase lock onto
On 2009-11-02, Evandro Menezes evan...@mailinator.com wrote:
On Nov 2, 2:51 pm, Steve Kostecke koste...@ntp.org wrote:
And, before you start, comment out your restrict lines.
I will, but here's what I have:
restrict localhost
restrict default kod limited nomodify
Those look fine.
--
David Woolley wrote in message
news:hcnjt3$bq...@news.eternal-september.org...
[]
This is a simple AM detector for the slow code (I don't know if the fast
code is still transmitted). It doesn't phase lock onto the carrier.
The fast code stopped many years ago. October 1998 according to:
Bill Unruh writes:
The bandwidth of whatever marks it has to be pretty narrow, or the
transmitter would interfer with everything around it. Ie, that means a
large time uncertainty.
The 60KHz WWVB signal is synchronously amplitude-modulated at a 1Hz
rate. The exact cycle on which the amplitude
John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com writes:
Bill Unruh writes:
The bandwidth of whatever marks it has to be pretty narrow, or the
transmitter would interfer with everything around it. Ie, that means a
large time uncertainty.
The 60KHz WWVB signal is synchronously amplitude-modulated at a 1Hz
Bill Unruh writes:
This is of course all made totally redundant by the GPS time
delivery-- even makes up for the transmission delay. It begins to look
like like Morse code in the days of cell phones. Quaint, but not
really useful.
One could say the same about NTP.
--
John Hasler
Unruh wrote:
John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com writes:
The 60KHz WWVB signal is synchronously amplitude-modulated at a 1Hz
rate. The exact cycle on which the amplitude changes can be locked in
by a digital phase-locked loop. A VCXO can be phase-locked to the
carrier to within a
Unruh unruh-s...@physics.ubc.ca wrote in message
news:fgmhm.50325$db2.6...@edtnps83...
[]
This is of course all made totally redundant by the GPS time delivery--
even makes up for the transmission delay. It begins to look like like
Morse code in the days of cell phones. Quaint, but not really
19 matches
Mail list logo
