Tom Van Baak wrote: > John, next time you can borrow that instrument blow > some hot/cool air on the antenna and see what changes > and by how much. > > I've heard that the older GPS antennas, the ones with zero > or less RF filtering, were much better for timing applications > but have never seen data to prove it.
That would make sense. The HP splitter has a single filter of some sort (probably SAW) on each output port. It is probably very similar to the filters used in current antennas. Just a swag, it's probably reasonable to assume that each stage of filtering adds about 10ns of delay. The tempco of the antenna amplifier/filter is certainly another factor to consider. If I can get hold of the analyzer again, we can do a hair dryer test on the splitter to see how it's affected. My mantra has become "every resonator is a thermometer". > For example, do you have one of the old Motorola hockey > puck ones you could test? If not, I can send you a bunch > of different GPS antenna to try. My hockey puck died and has been replaced by a Timing 2000 antenna. I do have a couple of others sitting on the shelf that I could test. But, I'm not sure how to non-destructively test an antenna, as the measurements we did require two-port analysis. I'm not sure if we could radiate enough signal into the antenna to get a usable output. By the way -- for anyone who's considering similar tests of amplified GPS antennas or splitters, note that common network analyzer output levels will drive the amplifier into compression and cause messed up readings. You need to shove as small a signal as possible into the device; 0dBm will definitely hose the readings (though it probably won't damage anything). I think we found that -30dBm was about the maximum we could use without seeing gain compression. John _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list time-nuts@febo.com https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts