Hi Matt,
On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 22:03 -0800, Matt Ettus wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 9:27 PM, wrote:
> > Hi Matt,
> >
> > having 140ps matching of the 1PPS between units is the equivalent of
> > knowing
> > your antenna position to within ~0.14 feet total error max.
> >
> > Thats less than o
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 10:59 PM, wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> I must admit I don't fully understand your requirements. Are you looking for
> correlation between errors, or absolute UTC accuracy, or short term
> jitter/wander?
>
> If you have two systems with self-surveyed antenna positions, you will
>
Hi Matt,
I must admit I don't fully understand your requirements. Are you looking for
correlation between errors, or absolute UTC accuracy, or short term
jitter/wander?
If you have two systems with self-surveyed antenna positions, you will
likely have 1 - 10 feet of antenna height error i
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 9:27 PM, wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> having 140ps matching of the 1PPS between units is the equivalent of knowing
> your antenna position to within ~0.14 feet total error max.
>
> Thats less than one inch error per antenna!
That makes it sound a lot more difficult than it reall
On 1/5/09 9:27 PM, "saidj...@aol.com" wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> having 140ps matching of the 1PPS between units is the equivalent of knowing
> your antenna position to within ~0.14 feet total error max.
>
> Thats less than one inch error per antenna!
>
> That would require some serious antenna su
Hi Matt,
having 140ps matching of the 1PPS between units is the equivalent of knowing
your antenna position to within ~0.14 feet total error max.
Thats less than one inch error per antenna!
That would require some serious antenna surveying :) This accuracy is
impossible to achieve with ti
> For the carrier itself absolute phase measurements cant be done.
> Such phase measurements only have meaning when modulation is present.
Alternating modulation frequency may do it for instance. Choosing a set
of modulation frequencies being relative prime to each other alows for
several readi
Matt
Matt Ettus wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Bruce Griffiths
> wrote:
>
>> Matt
>>
>> Matt Ettus wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Bruce Griffiths
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
If the application is somewhat analogous to VLBI, then the maximum
(uncorrect
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Bruce Griffiths
wrote:
> Matt
>
> Matt Ettus wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Bruce Griffiths
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> If the application is somewhat analogous to VLBI, then the maximum
>>> (uncorrectable ie random) allowable carrier frequency phase errors
>>>
frequency measurement
>> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Common sky pps errors for any GPSDOs?
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Lux, James P
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> -Original Message-
>> >> From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.c
ary 05, 2009 11:31 AM
>>> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
>>> Subject: [time-nuts] Common sky pps errors for any GPSDOs?
>>>
>>> I am working with someone who needs to have time synchronized
>>> reception of signals in various loca
Matt
Matt Ettus wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Bruce Griffiths
> wrote:
>
>
>> If the application is somewhat analogous to VLBI, then the maximum
>> (uncorrectable ie random) allowable carrier frequency phase errors
>> between receivers depends on the integration time.
>> Maximum int
> -Original Message-
> From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com
> [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On Behalf Of Matt Ettus
> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 2:28 PM
> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Common sky pps errors for
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Bruce Griffiths
wrote:
>
> If the application is somewhat analogous to VLBI, then the maximum
> (uncorrectable ie random) allowable carrier frequency phase errors
> between receivers depends on the integration time.
> Maximum integration times for VLBI are typicall
ecise time and frequency measurement
>> Subject: [time-nuts] Common sky pps errors for any GPSDOs?
>>
>> I am working with someone who needs to have time synchronized
>> reception of signals in various locations which are separated
>> by less than 100 km. This is a situation s
Hi Matt,
on Fury we typically see the 1PPS aligned to within +/-25ns or so without
calibration when two units use the same antenna feed.
There is a good paper on the M12+ receiver's accuracy from Synergy/NIST,
they tested five receivers against UTC (at UTC!!). They came up with a baseline
Matt Ettus wrote:
> I am working with someone who needs to have time synchronized
> reception of signals in various locations which are separated by less
> than 100 km. This is a situation similar to VLBI, but since the
> distances are shorter, the center frequencies are lower, and the
> integrati
> -Original Message-
> From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com
> [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On Behalf Of Matt Ettus
> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 11:31 AM
> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
> Subject: [time-nuts] Common sky pps errors for an
I am working with someone who needs to have time synchronized
reception of signals in various locations which are separated by less
than 100 km. This is a situation similar to VLBI, but since the
distances are shorter, the center frequencies are lower, and the
integration times are much shorter, w
19 matches
Mail list logo
