FWIW. No detailed content, and a rather quick read. "Five key trends in GPS".
https://www.u-blox.com/en/blogs/insights/five-key-trends-gps
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listin
It's interesting that they talk about the F9 receivers offering 5 ns
absolute time accuracy. Does anyone know of tests confirming that, and
what sort of care was required in the setup to get there?
John
On 2/26/21 9:34 AM, Robert LaJeunesse wrote:
FWIW. No detailed content, and a rather
Hi
I can’t think of many antennas (multi band or single band) that claim to know
their
delay to < 5 ns. Simply having a *differential* delay spec of < 5 ns is quite
good.
Same thing with delay ripple, you see specs out to around 15 ns on a lot of
antennas.
None of this is getting you to the ac
John, if you look back at the recent GPSDO discussion initiated by
"dandober" in hpaligent keysight group, you'll see a post by Leo Bodnar,
linking a Ublox model here
https://www.u-blox.com/sites/default/files/products/documents/LEA-M8F_DataSheet_%28UBX-14001772%29.pdf
I looked it up, and I re
They're claiming "even better than" 5 ns for relative time, which given
the 4 ns jitter seems at least sort-of reasonable. But until someone
shows me otherwise, I'm still thinking that getting better than 25 ns
absolute accuracy is a pretty good day's work.
John
On 2/26/21 5:26 PM, Bob
Hi
Would not “absolute” timing be referenced to UTC? (or something similar)
Bob
> On Feb 26, 2021, at 5:37 PM, ed breya wrote:
>
> John, if you look back at the recent GPSDO discussion initiated by "dandober"
> in hpaligent keysight group, you'll see a post by Leo Bodnar, linking a Ublox
> m
You have to be careful comparing the LEA-M8F with other GPS units. It
does have low jitter because the "TIMEPULSE" signal is derived from the
TCXO which is locked to the GPS time mark.
But their claim of "essentially jitter free" depends on your definition
of "essentially" -- attached is a co
That's how I'd interpret it.
Get BlueMail for Android
On Feb 26, 2021, 7:42 PM, at 7:42 PM, Bob kb8tq wrote:
>Hi
>
>Would not “absolute” timing be referenced to UTC? (or something
>similar)
>
>Bob
>
>> On Feb 26, 2021, at 5:37 PM, ed breya wrote:
>>
>> John, if you look back at the recent G
Typical L1 antenna delays range from 20 to 70 ns.
I know of only one antenna for which a delay is given by the vendor and the
technique used was just to measure the electronic delay ie by injecting a
signal into the circuit. To do it properly, you need a setup in a microwave
anechoic chamber with t
On 2/26/21 4:00 PM, John Ackermann N8UR wrote:
They're claiming "even better than" 5 ns for relative time, which
given the 4 ns jitter seems at least sort-of reasonable. But until
someone shows me otherwise, I'm still thinking that getting better
than 25 ns absolute accuracy is a pretty good d
A while ago I tried doing a decidedly non-anechoic measurement with a
VNA exciter going to a 1500 MHz ground plane and the receiver connected
to the antenna (with a known delay cable) and I got a similar result,
but there was enough noise that I didn't think I could nail it down to
within 10 ns
11 matches
Mail list logo
