Hi
There are an enormous number of branches and twists in coming up with a “zero
failure”
system.
One of many:
If the system uses GPS (or any GNSS) *and* Joe pulls up with a GPS jammer in
his truck, all GPS
systems go off the air. If Joe parks in the parking lot for a few weeks, the
systems
There was a caveat on the page about some relationship between the two outputs,
But there wasn't any specifics.
How does one see what the limitations are ?
Tnx, Dick, W1KSZ
-Original Message-
From: time-nuts [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On Behalf Of Gregory Beat
Sent: Friday, Oct
Hi
The PPS out of the GPS has a number of issues short term. Without sawtooth
correction it likely is hopping and bopping 5 or 10 ns each second. Looked at as
frequency, the 1 Hz is +/- many ppb.
The “frequency” output inherits this problem and adds the issues associated
with pulse
drop freque
Fellow time-nuts,
Next week is filled with interesting stuff as we gather in Potsdam for this:
https://www.ptb.de/8fsm2015/about-the-symposium/
I and Attila will be there, so who will join us?
PS. For the moment I actually don't know how many Cs-clocks I have...
it's complicated.
Cheers,
Ma
> Le 9 oct. 2015 à 16:16, Clint Jay a écrit :
>
> I am still learning and want to understand, if the PPS is good then why is
> the programmable output bad, as I understand it thus far, the PPS is
> derived from the same clock source or have I got that badly wrong?
Yes, the same clock, BUT the o
There is a lot of jitter on a GPS 1 PPS output.
You need a big "flywheel" to smooth out the jitter errors.
GPS modules only have room for small flywheels.
--- Graham
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Clint Jay wrote:
> I am still learning and want to understand, if the PPS is good then why is
> t
The 1 pps and the output frequencies are all derived from the same XO in
the module. Up to 7 the difference in a T is that the saw tooth correction
factor is brought out for correction purposes . 7 has a much higher XO
frequency than the 5 so the saw tooth is smaller. So use a ublox 7 if you
On 7.10.2015 14:45, Arthur Dent wrote:
I believe that like a lot of the Meinberg receivers that
this uses a down converter to give an IF frequency of
35.4 MHz. If you don't have the converter that apparently
isn't included with the receiver you have a $300 paperweight.
You might want to check wit
Redundant GPSDO configuration / hardware
Hello to the Group,
I realize integrated redundant GPSDO systems are available. If I wanted to
obtain a near zero failure down time using (dual) separate GPSDO hardware, is
there a conventional or practical method to integrate or construct a hot
stan
Hi!
On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 10:52:37PM +0200, Alexander Huemer wrote:
> on the Lucent RTFG-u units there are two types of D-subminiature 9 pin
> connectors. The common, threaded type and some other type with a
> different kind of fastening technique I have never seen before.
> Does this other ty
Some additional information from Don, AJ7LL post on new GPS product.
This is what Bill, AA7XT (new Force12) posted on his Blog, 3 weeks ago.
Ultra-accurate GPS-Locked Precision Frequency Reference
http://www.force12inc.com/pages/blog.htmlultraaccurate-gpslocked-precision-frequency-reference-now-
I am still learning and want to understand, if the PPS is good then why is
the programmable output bad, as I understand it thus far, the PPS is
derived from the same clock source or have I got that badly wrong?
On 9 October 2015 at 12:16, Bob Camp wrote:
> Hi
>
> Doing a GPSDO by locking to the
http://www.force12inc.com/products/gps-locked-precision-frequency-reference-low-jitter-gps-clock-450-hz-to-800-mhz-output.html
Don
--
Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.
Lucky is he who has been able to understand the causes of things.
Virgil
---
"Noli sinere n
Hi
Doing a GPSDO by locking to the awful 10 MHz output from any of these GPS
modules
is not going to work very well. Given the very long time constants involved in
a GPSDO
control loop, doing it without code is going to be pretty difficult.
A much easier approach:
Grab the GPS PPS and a scop
golgarfrinc...@gmail.com said:
> I saw a lot of these quick locking connector shells on industrial routing
> equipment in the 1990s and hated them.
They were part of the early Ethernet specs. That was back in the days of 1/2
inch coax, vampire taps, transcievers, and drop cables. They got a h
Looks like what I call a slide latch
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1CAACAC_enUS590US590&es_sm=122&biw=1366&bih=631&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=d-sub+slide+latch&oq=d-sub+slide+latch&gs_l=img.12...0.0.0.208917.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0.ccynfh...0...1..64.img..0.0.0.kopFXhwkvbM
Readily available parts at DigiKe
16 matches
Mail list logo
