Hi Bob,
OK, I give up. Try as I might, I can't fudge things enough to make any sense.
I did run a set of 1 hour tests that seemed to confirm what I can infer from
the phase plots in timelab, but anything longer than that and the curves either
contradict the phase plots, or there are large gaps in at least one trace, or a
trace is even missing entirely. Oh well. I seem to remember reading that the
3c-hat was only useful in comparing similar devices. The KS just isn't close
enough to what I'm trying to compare it to, I guess.
If you or anyone else has an ADEV plot of the KS against some local standard
(for any length of time, any standard, even just a bare OCXO that is not a
Trimble 34310-T) could you please share it with me? I'm looking for relative
peformance, not a definitive test. Of course if you also have one of a 34310-T
against the same standard, that would be great!
Bob
From: Bob kb8tq <kb...@n1k.org>
To: Bob Stewart <b...@evoria.net>; Discussion of precise time and frequency
measurement <time-nuts@febo.com>
Cc: John Miles <j...@miles.io>
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Three-cornered hat on timelab?
Hi
There are a number of papers from the 70’s and 80’s digging into three corner
hat data. The net result often
would turn out to be “less than zero” noise on one of the DUT’s. Since that’s
physically impossible the technique
got a bit of “attention”. The Cliff Notes version of the results is that
simultaneous measurements were the key
to getting decent results. The closer to “same time” (as in microseconds or
nanoseconds) the better. Even with very careful
data collection, odd things can still happen. Phase noise pops up at crazy low
levels or ADEV goes to bizarre
numbers. In many ways a TimePod (or other ADC based setup) is ideal for getting
the data synchronized. Running
all three devices on one is by far the best way I have seen to make the
technique work. It still can have problems,
but less so that other ways of doing it.
Bob
> On Apr 13, 2017, at 7:16 PM, Bob Stewart <b...@evoria.net> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
> I had a chance to think about this some more after I pressed the send key.
> The ionospheric effects are certainly going to be different if the distance
> in time between tests is large. And, of course, there is the fact that the
> KS has a pretty old receiver compared the Ublox I use, so that even the
> reaction to the ionosphere is likely to be different. So, I thought I'd
> experiment with some runs with both GPSDOs in holdover to see if that would
> even the score, so to speak. Of course then I have the temperature variable,
> so it's never going to be perfect.
> Anyway, thanks for the help. If I get anything that seems useful out of
> this, I'll post links to the data.
> Bob
>
> From: John Miles <j...@miles.io>
> To: 'Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement'
> <time-nuts@febo.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 6:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Three-cornered hat on timelab?
>
> Longer runs would be better to the extent that they give you smaller error
> bars in your tau range of interest, certainly. But any effects that
> influence one of your runs but not the others will render the 3-cornered hat
> solution questionable, if not outright invalid. Only through many repeated
> runs can you learn to tell the bogus data from the good stuff. So I'd make
> shorter runs at first, until you're sure you know what you're looking at.
>
>
>
> It doesn't matter which source is applied to the start versus stop channel,
> as long as the assignments are consistent with the source labels you apply.
> I would use frequency-count mode to simplify things, at least at first. This
> is already a very challenging measurement for all the reasons mentioned.
>
>
>
> -- john, KE5FX
>
> Miles Design LLC
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Bob Stewart [mailto:b...@evoria.net]
> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 8:41 AM
> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement; John Miles
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Three-cornered hat on timelab?
>
>
>
> Hi John,
>
>
>
> Thanks! With lesser equipment, such as the 5370A, would longer runs be
> better? I used a set of 1 hr runs and the result wasn't quite what I had
> expected. However, it may be that I had mislabeled the files, and thus got
> the sources confused. Of course, it may be that the ionospheric effect was
> grossly different between the three tests. So, with a 5370, Source A would
> be the START input and Source B would be the STOP input, right? For my
> testing, the sources are all 10MHz signals, and I'm driving the EXT input
> with 1PPS from a GPSDO.
>
>
>
>
>
> Bob
>
> _______________________________________________
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
