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
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
On 7 Jan 2015 01:24, Charles Steinmetz csteinm...@yandex.com 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
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 magnus@... 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.
On 8 January 2015 at 10:03, Charles Steinmetz csteinm...@yandex.com 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.
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 csteinm...@yandex.com
wrote:
Dave wrote:
Yes, but I was
is 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
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 looked
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 gign...@gmail.com:
I
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 UTC
12 matches
Mail list logo
