Re: [time-nuts] TICC reference source

Thank you!  This is a great manual for time interval measurement.  I'll go with 10811. --- (Mr.) Taka Kamiya I'm stuck in a wormhole  Hello, worms! On Friday, June 14, 2019, 12:28:26 AM EDT, Anders Wallin wrote: page 48 here has some notes on

Re: [time-nuts] Truetime XLi sat signal levels (dBW to dBc/SNR conversion question)

According to this reference the minimum received power on Earth should be -158.50dBW. According to this XLi manual the expected antenna gain should be between 20 to 36dB, so the reported received signal should

Re: [time-nuts] Truetime XLi sat signal levels (dBW to dBc/SNR conversion question)

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 01:05:21AM +, Mark Sims wrote: Since nobody else has stuck their neck out to speculate... I will. I do not pretend to know for sure exactly what TrueTime means. > Pretty much all GPS receivers report sig levels in dBc or SNR type > values in the

[time-nuts] TICC reference source

If you are using the TICC to measure the time interval between two signals then the reference clock does not need to be all that good (the gooder the better, though). But if you are using the TICC to measure one or two independent sources, then your reference clock should be as good as you

[time-nuts] Truetime XLi sat signal levels (dBW to dBc/SNR conversion question)

I have figured out an empirical formula for mapping between the TrueTime dBW values and the more traditionally reported signal level values. I ran a Ublox F9T and the TrueTime in parallel off the same antenna. By comparing the TrueTime and Ublox sig levels a rather trivial mapping function

Re: [time-nuts] TICC reference source

page 48 here has some notes on time-base error: http://leapsecond.com/hpan/an200-3.pdf for time-interval measurement the number of digits matter. if you keep time-intervals 'small', say 123.45 ns (probably can't resolve much below 10ps anyway with a TICC) then a time-base with only about 5-6