On 7 Jan 2015 01:24, "Charles Steinmetz" wrote:
>
> Dave wrote:
>
>> At 50 MHz, the loss from the common port is 12.8 dB, and the isolation
>> between two ports sets of ports is either 38 or 48 dB
>
>
> To get the worst-case output-to-output isolation, you need to test two
output ports that are el
Bert
You are correct those have no EFC. They do appear to be a good grade
oscillator for $15.
Regards
Paul
WB8TSL
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Bert Kehren via time-nuts <
time-nuts@febo.com> wrote:
> Are those not the ones that have no EFC
>
>
> In a message dated 1/7/2015 3:02:20 P.M. Eastern
Magnus Danielson writes:
>
> Hi,
>
> Darn, not reading all the notes. Again.
>
> Well, in that case, scaling should be done... then you get average of
> 198,5075 ns and 149,8 ps RMS jitter, with 1,1 ns peak-to-peak.
>
> The jitter is okish then, but a little better would indeed be nice.
>
>
uploaded to
http://www.qsl.net/b/bi7lnq//freqcntv4/test/20150108/tdc_stddev.xls
The configuration of tdc-gp22 is now:
Register_0 = 0x00c42700,
//Register_1 = 0x19498000, //stop2-stop1
Register_1 = 0x01418000,//0x01418000, //stop1-start,
Register_2 = 0xe000,
Register_3
Dave wrote:
Yes, but I was aware of this, and that's why I got two different isolation
figures.
What I was pointing out is that there will be *4* different isolation
figures from any one output port, not just two. The lowest will be
to the one electrically adjacent output, next (a bit highe
On 8 January 2015 at 10:03, Charles Steinmetz wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>
>> Yes, but I was aware of this, and that's why I got two different isolation
>> figures.
>
>
> What I was pointing out is that there will be *4* different isolation
> figures from any one output port, not just two. The lowest w
Charles is absolutely correct this is what I have seen in these large
splitters.
I have a really nice one that you can take the cover off and look. Lots of
screws.
Regards
Paul
WB8TSL
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Charles Steinmetz
wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>
> Yes, but I was aware of this, and th
t...@patoka.org said:
> The question is how usually GPS modules handle leap seconds ? Is it
> satelates who send UTC time to GPS module or GPS module has firmware with
> leap second information hard-coded ?
The satellites send GPS time with a low bandwidth footnote that provides the
offset to U
Hi Neil
Just now, I disconnected TPS79333 from board and used LR6 battery for
the analog part of TDC. The result does not show improvement. So I think
LDO might not be the primary noise contributor.
Thanks for the suggestion.
2015-01-03 22:01 GMT+08:00 Neil Schroeder :
> I would reconsider
> in advance. When either of the two flags is set, the kernel will trigger
> the leap event in the last seconds of the current day. GPS should announce
> the pending leap second not long after the IERS announcement. I haven't
> checked my clocks yet but it may already be out there.
I haven’t look
I couldn't help noticing that Debian just issued an update
to tzone, so that means Linux systems now know about the
leap second.
-Chuck Harris
Tim Shoppa wrote:
I'm not sure there's any computer time package that correctly disambiguates
23:59:59 vs 23:59:60 in UTC timestamps in a general purpos
Thank you all for the input.
since I have 12v (or 15v) available
I will try the LT1027... looks promising, the so8
version with typ 2ppm/C... (or why not the can
version for 1ppm/C)
Application is OCXO reference for mmWave gear... I just
want the resulting 100's of GHz not to drift because of the
12 matches
Mail list logo
