Re: [time-nuts] FMT 2006 results
if it turns out that there really is an anomaly on 40M, we'll let ARRL know; last year they were off by about 0.4Hz on 160M so something like this isn't a first. One problem is that they really don't aim the test at the time-nuts crowd, and frankly their measurement system isn't at the level some of us would like to see. And the change of transmitter hardware this year didn't help. I don't want to go into details on the list, but there is some activity going on to try to improve the situation next year. John - Rex wrote: > John and others, > > I didn't play in this game so I haven't been paying close attention to > the contest or results. In my skimming of the messages I think I am > hearing that several knowledgeable people came out with results close to > each other but offset from the "winning" results. > > If I am correct in my assessment, seems like the ARRL should be made > aware that the process or the specification of the contest signal may be > lacking in some details. > > What do you think was the issue? Was it a modulated carrier on SSB with > some residual rather than pure CW? > > If there is some consensus of close mis-measured results in this group, > seems like the ARRL needs to be informed about it so exactly what the > signal is is described or the contest is modified with a better pure CW > carrier in the future. > > Am I right, or am I completely missing the point in some way? > > -Rex > > On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 00:54:34 -0600, "Connie Marshall" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Looks good John Our readdings are within .03Hz on 160, .1Hz on 80, and >> .06Hz on 40 of each other. >> >> Connie >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Behalf Of John Ackermann N8UR >> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 9:33 AM >> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement >> Subject: [time-nuts] FMT 2006 results >> >> >> I've put my FMT results at http://www.febo.com/time-freq/fmt/fmt2006/ >> based on the preliminary numbers from ARRL that Connie posted here. >> >> As I noted earlier, I screwed up the math and ended up being off on all >> three bands by 75 to 110 Hz -- double the delta between W1AW and my >> marker, because I did USB math when the receivers were set to LSB. >> >> After correcting that error, I was -0.295 Hz on 160, -0.343 Hz on 40, >> and -1.066 Hz on 40. That's a bit more like it, though the error on 40 >> is interesting, and I see that a few other folks saw that problem, too. >> We'll have to wait for the final results from W1AW to see if their 40M >> frequency had a typo. >> >> I think a couple of other folks noted, as did I, that on 40M there >> appeared to be two signals close to each other (I measured about 0.5 >> Hz). An FFT with enough resolution to separate them lost any ability to >> look for CW in the waterfall, so I had to guess which was the correct >> signal. I chose the sharper one, which was the higher frequency of the >> two; had I picked the one that was more smeared out, I would have been >> more like -0.5 Hz off. >> >> I've learned my lesson -- from now on, all measurements will be taken in >> USB mode! >> >> John >> >> ___ >> time-nuts mailing list >> time-nuts@febo.com >> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts >> >> >> ___ >> time-nuts mailing list >> time-nuts@febo.com >> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > > > ___ > time-nuts mailing list > time-nuts@febo.com > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > > ___ time-nuts mailing list time-nuts@febo.com https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
Re: [time-nuts] FMT 2006 results
John and others, I didn't play in this game so I haven't been paying close attention to the contest or results. In my skimming of the messages I think I am hearing that several knowledgeable people came out with results close to each other but offset from the "winning" results. If I am correct in my assessment, seems like the ARRL should be made aware that the process or the specification of the contest signal may be lacking in some details. What do you think was the issue? Was it a modulated carrier on SSB with some residual rather than pure CW? If there is some consensus of close mis-measured results in this group, seems like the ARRL needs to be informed about it so exactly what the signal is is described or the contest is modified with a better pure CW carrier in the future. Am I right, or am I completely missing the point in some way? -Rex On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 00:54:34 -0600, "Connie Marshall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Looks good John Our readdings are within .03Hz on 160, .1Hz on 80, and >.06Hz on 40 of each other. > >Connie > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Behalf Of John Ackermann N8UR >Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 9:33 AM >To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement >Subject: [time-nuts] FMT 2006 results > > >I've put my FMT results at http://www.febo.com/time-freq/fmt/fmt2006/ >based on the preliminary numbers from ARRL that Connie posted here. > >As I noted earlier, I screwed up the math and ended up being off on all >three bands by 75 to 110 Hz -- double the delta between W1AW and my >marker, because I did USB math when the receivers were set to LSB. > >After correcting that error, I was -0.295 Hz on 160, -0.343 Hz on 40, >and -1.066 Hz on 40. That's a bit more like it, though the error on 40 >is interesting, and I see that a few other folks saw that problem, too. > We'll have to wait for the final results from W1AW to see if their 40M >frequency had a typo. > >I think a couple of other folks noted, as did I, that on 40M there >appeared to be two signals close to each other (I measured about 0.5 >Hz). An FFT with enough resolution to separate them lost any ability to >look for CW in the waterfall, so I had to guess which was the correct >signal. I chose the sharper one, which was the higher frequency of the >two; had I picked the one that was more smeared out, I would have been >more like -0.5 Hz off. > >I've learned my lesson -- from now on, all measurements will be taken in >USB mode! > >John > >___ >time-nuts mailing list >time-nuts@febo.com >https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > > >___ >time-nuts mailing list >time-nuts@febo.com >https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts ___ time-nuts mailing list time-nuts@febo.com https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
Re: [time-nuts] FMT 2006 results
Looks good John Our readdings are within .03Hz on 160, .1Hz on 80, and .06Hz on 40 of each other. Connie -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John Ackermann N8UR Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 9:33 AM To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement Subject: [time-nuts] FMT 2006 results I've put my FMT results at http://www.febo.com/time-freq/fmt/fmt2006/ based on the preliminary numbers from ARRL that Connie posted here. As I noted earlier, I screwed up the math and ended up being off on all three bands by 75 to 110 Hz -- double the delta between W1AW and my marker, because I did USB math when the receivers were set to LSB. After correcting that error, I was -0.295 Hz on 160, -0.343 Hz on 40, and -1.066 Hz on 40. That's a bit more like it, though the error on 40 is interesting, and I see that a few other folks saw that problem, too. We'll have to wait for the final results from W1AW to see if their 40M frequency had a typo. I think a couple of other folks noted, as did I, that on 40M there appeared to be two signals close to each other (I measured about 0.5 Hz). An FFT with enough resolution to separate them lost any ability to look for CW in the waterfall, so I had to guess which was the correct signal. I chose the sharper one, which was the higher frequency of the two; had I picked the one that was more smeared out, I would have been more like -0.5 Hz off. I've learned my lesson -- from now on, all measurements will be taken in USB mode! John ___ time-nuts mailing list time-nuts@febo.com https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts ___ time-nuts mailing list time-nuts@febo.com https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
[time-nuts] FMT 2006 results
I've put my FMT results at http://www.febo.com/time-freq/fmt/fmt2006/ based on the preliminary numbers from ARRL that Connie posted here. As I noted earlier, I screwed up the math and ended up being off on all three bands by 75 to 110 Hz -- double the delta between W1AW and my marker, because I did USB math when the receivers were set to LSB. After correcting that error, I was -0.295 Hz on 160, -0.343 Hz on 40, and -1.066 Hz on 40. That's a bit more like it, though the error on 40 is interesting, and I see that a few other folks saw that problem, too. We'll have to wait for the final results from W1AW to see if their 40M frequency had a typo. I think a couple of other folks noted, as did I, that on 40M there appeared to be two signals close to each other (I measured about 0.5 Hz). An FFT with enough resolution to separate them lost any ability to look for CW in the waterfall, so I had to guess which was the correct signal. I chose the sharper one, which was the higher frequency of the two; had I picked the one that was more smeared out, I would have been more like -0.5 Hz off. I've learned my lesson -- from now on, all measurements will be taken in USB mode! John ___ time-nuts mailing list time-nuts@febo.com https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
