> Does anyone know the latest 5061A Manual part number and latest
> print date?
I haven't seen anything after the 1978 edition that Had mentioned. If you
have a newer model 5061A (e.g. with the 10811 upgrade) you might look for a
5061B manual as well.
> I have a 5061A that appears to be working
Hi Bert - one way to share large files for free is dropbox.com. The free
account is good for 2 GB. Drag and drop for very easy use, it creates a link to
put in your email to get to the file.
As an owner of a (very nice) Z3805A, I would also like to know more about it's
MTI 5 MHz. oscillator, MTI
Joe,
I don't know the latest but on the manual I have the part number is
05061-9052 with a print date of June 1978.
Had
K7MLR
At 08:51 PM 6/11/2010, you wrote:
Does anyone know the latest 5061A Manual part number and latest print date?
Thanks,
Joe
__
Does anyone know the latest 5061A Manual part number and latest print date?
Thanks,
Joe
___
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.
I have a 5061A that appears to be working correctly except there is no 2nd
Harmonic indication. In addition, on the A7 assembly, there is no sine wave
out on J2. When looking at the cable from the tube to J1, there is no sine
wave there either. However, the Beam I indication is appropriate and I
Hal Murray wrote:
jim...@earthlink.net said:
The Chilean earthquake changed the angular rotation rate (or, probably more
accurately, changed the direction of the axis of rotation as well)
of the earth a small amount, as do most large earthquakes.
Has anybody measured that?
I don't think y
At 10:46 AM 6/11/2010, iov...@inwind.it wrote...
(Speculative hint: We accept that the universe is expanding. Might
this affect
the fine structure of matter, including cesium atoms? Is there any
adverse
proof? What is easier to think? a) the expansion of the universe
doesn't affect
at all the
jim...@earthlink.net said:
> The Chilean earthquake changed the angular rotation rate (or, probably more
> accurately, changed the direction of the axis of rotation as well)
> of the earth a small amount, as do most large earthquakes.
Has anybody measured that?
Is there a good URL on this? (
I changed the disciplining time constant on my Thunderbolts and you can
improve it (over the 100 second default). I changed it to 200 sec, then
ran a day, the 300 sec, ran another day, etc.
One unit was best at 400 seconds, the other unit at 600 seconds. What
you should see is less movement
>> Wikipedia says 2 ms/100 years and that it was noticed by
>> Halley in 1695 and confirmed by Dunthorne in 1749. I
>> assume they were using the Earth's orbit around the sun
>> as their reference clock.
> how exactly would that work? Are they measuring the number of "days" in a
> "year"? Ho
Hi, Sorry for the advert, but is any member interested in a CSI ABX-3 DGPS
receiver and MBL-3 H-field antenna? It's a 2 channel 300kHz receiver. Locks up
straight away here in the West of England. I'm open to offers before it goes on
"that Auction site" Replies off list please.
Robert G8RPI.
Tom Van Baak wrote:
Beside the general theoretical considerations as of what answer is
more acceptable (sincerely I agree so far) and what method could be
used to solve the matter, can anybody out there point me please to
any article on actual measurements of the variation rate of the
earth'
Hal Murray wrote:
iov...@inwind.it said:
I was wondering, why we assume that Earth's rotation is slowing down,
instead that clocks are speeding up?
The quick answer is that there is a mechanism that explains why the Earth is
slowing down: tidal effects. There is no corresponding way to ex
Tom Van Baak wrote:
Whether the answer is (a) or (b) doesn't change the fact that
the earth day is a poor clock compared with other clocks now
available. Besides tidal friction effects which might be hard to
imagine, or lunar effects which you already know about, note
that every time it rains or
Following Steve Wiseman's generous offer I now have some SMD diodes and h
ave modified my dismantled monitor.
I haven't got a T'bolt running at the moment but the modified monitor boots
up ok and then flashes "No Message" as I would expect.
After adding all three series diodes I measured 5.0
>bro...@pacific.net wrote:
>Hi Antonio:
>
>It turns out that the atmosphere has instabilities that make the
>position of a star appear to vary a few arc seconds and that effect is
>called "seeing".
>Because of the seeing you can not use an optical telescope to make a
>measurement of the Earth'
> Hi
>
> The 260's are better for environmental than a 10811, same / worse than a
> 1938. The "typical" 260 beats the "typical" 10811 or 1938 on short term /
> medium term stability. There are some 10811's and 1938's that will indeed
> beat some 260's for short term stability.
>
> Bob
___
I think the answer is in your previous post, that is the year is more stable
than the day as compared to the same clock.
And this measurement very likely has been actually made.
Antonio I8IOV
Right.
Defining a second as 1 / 86400 of the length of a mean
solar day is also problematic because
> hmur...@megapathdsl.net wrote:
snip
Hal,
thanks for your comments and for pointing me to the Wikipedia articles.
>I'm not really a physics wizard. There might be some gravity terms or
>experiments I've missed. But the universe isn't expanding very fast (at
>least not in the local re
Hi Antonio:
It turns out that the atmosphere has instabilities that make the
position of a star appear to vary a few arc seconds and that effect is
called "seeing".
Because of the seeing you can not use an optical telescope to make a
measurement of the Earth's rotation to the accuracy needed t
> t...@leapsecond.com wrote:
>> Beside the general theoretical considerations as of what answer is more
>> acceptable (sincerely I agree so far) and what method could be used to
solve
>> the matter, can anybody out there point me please to any article on actual
>> measurements of the varia
iov...@inwind.it said:
> I was wondering, why we assume that Earth's rotation is slowing down,
> instead that clocks are speeding up?
The quick answer is that there is a mechanism that explains why the Earth is
slowing down: tidal effects. There is no corresponding way to explain why
atomic
> t...@leapsecond.com wrote:
>> I was wondering, why we assume that Earth's rotation is slowing down,
instead
>> that clocks are speeding up?
>>
>> Antonio I8IOV
>
>Hi Antonio,
>
snip...
>The result of these comparisons show the earth day has
>more drift and is less stable than the earth ye
Beside the general theoretical considerations as of what answer is more
acceptable (sincerely I agree so far) and what method could be used to solve
the matter, can anybody out there point me please to any article on actual
measurements of the variation rate of the earth's rotational speed, no
Good point! matter & its properties should be affected by the decreasing
gravity of the expanding universe.
Is our time measurement also minutely changing with it?
At 11-06-10, you wrote:
>Beside the general theoretical considerations as of what answer is more
>acceptable (sincerely I agree so
I was wondering, why we assume that Earth's rotation is slowing down, instead
that clocks are speeding up?
Antonio I8IOV
Hi Antonio,
Good question.
If all you had is one clock; then it is the time.
If you have two clocks you can see them drift apart (if
you can't, then you either aren't lo
Beside the general theoretical considerations as of what answer is more
acceptable (sincerely I agree so far) and what method could be used to solve
the matter, can anybody out there point me please to any article on actual
measurements of the variation rate of the earth's rotational speed, no
Hi
Your 10811's are likely a result of someone going through a *lot* of 10811's to
pick those out. I believe that the 260 part in the Z3815 is specified for a
maximum ADEV of 1x10^-12 at one second. They show a part like that on their
standard spec sheet. It's certainly quite possible to hit th
Hi
Ok, then the TBolt is running 100 to 200 ns for a tau of 12 seconds to 280K
seconds.
Without looking at the raw data it's tough to see what's going on. The numbers
are 5 to 10X worse than I would have expected them to be.
One of the monitor programs (like Lady Heather) might be useful in
I have not seen any plots on the 260 or E1938A on this site, I have only
been on for a year, how ever I have a "few" 10811s" that Corby Dawson ran for
me all below 1 E-12 one as low as 4 E -13 in the 1 to 100 sec. range. My
problem is that Corby's file size is 900K and I have not found a way
Thanks Bob.
On 12 June 2010 01:24, Bob Camp wrote:
> Hi
>
> The 260's are better for environmental than a 10811, same / worse than a
> 1938. The "typical" 260 beats the "typical" 10811 or 1938 on short term /
> medium term stability. There are some 10811's and 1938's that will indeed
> beat som
HI Bob,
10 nanoseconds at the bottom, up to 10 microseconds at the top,
in three logarithmic sections.
Donal: Is the time-constant at its default of 100 seconds, and was the
above plot taken shortly after turning it on? There has been lots of
talk on here about tweaking the performance. In
Hi
The 260's are better for environmental than a 10811, same / worse than a 1938.
The "typical" 260 beats the "typical" 10811 or 1938 on short term / medium term
stability. There are some 10811's and 1938's that will indeed beat some 260's
for short term stability.
Bob
On Jun 11, 2010, at
Hi
The vertical axis on the plot is pretty tough to read. What is the scale?
Bob
On Jun 11, 2010, at 8:43 AM, Donal G wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> I bought a Thunderbolt device recently. I have done some
> 10Mhz frequency tests in comparison to a Cesium reference.
> Attached is MTIE plot. Have any
On 11 June 2010 07:24, Murray Greenman wrote:
>
> If you have one of the earlier Z3815A units, you will find the superb HP
> E1938A 10MHz reference oscillator inside. There were manufacturing
> problems with these units, I understand, and later ones (like mine) have
> a Milliren 260 series 5MHz D
Sorry Antonio, please ignore me. I've just realised that it is my clock that
is speeding up :)
Cheers,
Steve
PS. note to self, always include a smiley with every posting, just in case.
On 11 June 2010 23:36, iov...@inwind.it wrote:
>
>
>
> Steve,
> would you please clarify your question?
> Anto
> In message <20100611102543.67641136...@hamburg.alientech.net>, Mike S
> writes:
>>At 06:03 AM 6/11/2010, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote...
>
>>I assume you mean use a clock to measure the earth's rotation, using
>>quasars as a positional reference. That's circular logic.
>
> Obviously, any measurement o
This whole time thing is based upon some arbitrary standard anyway. As soon
as the first leap-second was added and short while after the second was
defined as 9,192,631,770 cycles of radiation corresponding to the transition
between two energy levels of the caesium-133 atom. Trying to keep some
sta
Hi
There's a very real chance at a Nobel Prize if you can prove us all wrong
The simplest answer is celestial navigation. More or less:
When the sun rose 100 years ago the stars looked like this. Today when the sun
rises, the stars are in slightly different positions. You obviously have to
Steve,
would you please clarify your question?
Antonio I8IOV
sar10...@gmail.com wrote:
Antonio, where do I get some of the stuff your on?Cheers,
Steve
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin
>>iov...@inwind.it
>>writes:
>> >
>> >I was wondering, why we assume that Earth's rotation is slowing
>> down, instead
>> >that clocks are speeding up?
>>
>>Because we can measure it relative to the position of very distant
>>quasars.
>
>I assume you mean use a clock to measure the earth's rotat
Antonio, where do I get some of the stuff your on?
Cheers,
Steve
On 11 June 2010 22:01, iov...@inwind.it wrote:
>
> I was wondering, why we assume that Earth's rotation is slowing down,
> instead
> that clocks are speeding up?
>
> Antonio I8IOV
>
> _
Hi
The monitor programs should let you know where the DAC voltage is on your unit.
If it's 1.9 Hz high and in the center of DAC range, that's fine.
Since you have no alarms popping up, I'd guess that the problem has to be
pretty close to the GPS front end. The previously mentioned RF amp is a
In message <20100611102543.67641136...@hamburg.alientech.net>, Mike S writes:
>At 06:03 AM 6/11/2010, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote...
>I assume you mean use a clock to measure the earth's rotation, using
>quasars as a positional reference. That's circular logic.
Obviously, any measurement of earths r
At 06:03 AM 6/11/2010, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote...
In message <815517.110281276250464575.javamail.r...@wmail51>,
"iov...@inwind.it
" writes:
>
>I was wondering, why we assume that Earth's rotation is slowing
down, instead
>that clocks are speeding up?
Because we can measure it relative to the
In message <815517.110281276250464575.javamail.r...@wmail51>, "iov...@inwind.it
" writes:
>
>I was wondering, why we assume that Earth's rotation is slowing down, instead
>that clocks are speeding up?
Because we can measure it relative to the position of very distant
quasars.
--
Poul-Henning K
I was wondering, why we assume that Earth's rotation is slowing down, instead
that clocks are speeding up?
Antonio I8IOV
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
an
Hello all,
the master Loran C from Lessay is maintained by french navy.
It is impossible to get any information about the state and/or
modifications.
So the most infos i have come from ...the web!
But the master of master clocks, is standins in Brest (french navy) and
participate to the elabor
Ulrich,
On 11 June 2010 02:40, Ulrich Bangert wrote:
> Steve,
>
> I do not want to comment the whole of your posting because I am tired of the
> discussion myself too.
Whilst you choose one point to pick on, you do me no favours by not
tackling the main points of my last comment, just choosing t
49 matches
Mail list logo
