olar plots into a horizontal
> rectangular strip and then use elapsed time in the vertical. This would allow
> a waterfall-style representation of GPS reception over time.
>
> /tvb
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Mark Sims" <hol...@hotmail.com>
> To: &
I think their advice was to limit the ADEV calculation for some tau to 300
bins. The standard error on estimating the standard deviation is ~ +- 5%
for 200 samples. So loosely speaking in the neighborhood of 100-300 bins
the resulting adev will have an rms uncertainty of roughly 5%. So limiting
<hol...@hotmail.com>
To: <time-nuts@febo.com>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 11:03 AM
Subject: [time-nuts] Thermal effects on cables --> ADEV
>I recently made a change in Lady Heather's satellite signal maps to help with
>a very similar issue. Before, the maps were based upon t
Hi
That’s the way I read what they are saying. More or less: Keep the number of
samples above
100, but below 300.
Bob
> On Jan 13, 2017, at 12:30 PM, Ole Petter Rønningen
> wrote:
>
> That IS interesting.. It reads to me that the advice is to keep a "moving 300
> pt
That IS interesting.. It reads to me that the advice is to keep a "moving 300
pt ADEV" when continously monitoring a (pair of) frequency source in e.g a VLBI
site - the reason for limiting it to 300 pts being that much more than that is
likely to average out potential issues..
Does that make
I recently made a change in Lady Heather's satellite signal maps to help with a
very similar issue. Before, the maps were based upon the accumulated average
value of the sat signals at each point in the sky. Now, every 24 hours, the
signal level averages are reset to their current average and
You are certainly justified to be cautious of only using an xDEV for state
of health. I don't know what GPS does for example to mark SV's as healthy
or not healthy.
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Bob Camp wrote:
> Hi
>
> I do agree with their point that systematics will get
Hi
I do agree with their point that systematics will get buried in giant data
blocks.
What I’m not quite as sure of is the utility of even 300 sample blocks to spot
systematic issues.
Bob
> On Jan 13, 2017, at 1:08 PM, Scott Stobbe wrote:
>
> I think you might be
I think you might be overthinking their point, that if you plan to use an
xDEV as a measure for state of health, don't use years worth of data.
Otherwise it could be days before the xDEV visually changes.
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Bob Camp wrote:
> Hi
>
> There’s an
Hi
There’s an interesting comment buried down in that paper about limiting ADEV to
< 300 samples per point. Their objective is apparently to better highlight
“systematic
errors”. I certainly agree that big datasets will swamp this sort of thing. I’m
not quite
sure that I’d recommend ADEV to
10 matches
Mail list logo