Paul, Sie sind willkommen
Randy Warner Senior Applications Engineer Synergy Systems, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 12:23 PM To: 'Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement' Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Best GPS 1PPS Accuracy Mit freundlichen Grüssen Paul Klöckler Coral links Gmbh Postfach 6955 CH-3001 Bern Schweiz -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Randy Warner Sent: Mittwoch, 13. Dezember 2006 19:27 To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Best GPS 1PPS Accuracy Jack, Jason is right. I think the M12M is currently at the top of the heap. Rick Hambly and Tom Clark have developed some circuitry that knocks the jitter down quite a lot. Basically, for a "normal" timing receiver (please don't flame me guys, I know there is other stuff out there) the jitter is dependent on the receiver micro-controller's clock frequency. For instance, the old UT+ timing receiver had a jitter spec of +/- 45ns. If you were to compare the short term 1PPS output from a UT+ to a rubidium, OCXO, or any "stable" reference oscillator with a 1PPS output you would see that one pulse might show up about 45ns ahead of the reference 1PPS output, the next one would be about 45ns behind the reference, etc., etc...... The reason for this particular "jitter" of 90ns is because the UT+ used a crystal running at about 11MHz, giving a period of about 90ns per clock cycle. Since the receiver can only place 1PPS pulses with a 90ns granularity it places the pulse as close to the what it thinks is the actual UTC time tick. One time it will be on one side of the UTC tick, the next time it may occur after the tick. This is where the term "sawtooth" comes from. In one of the timing messages the receiver puts out its best guess of how far off the NEXT pulse is going to be. If you plot this data it looks roughly like a sawtooth as on average 50% of the pulses are ahead of the time tick and the other 50% are behind it. I have attached a screenshot from Winoncore12 showing this waveform. Note that in this screenshot the jitter is about +/-15ns. That's because the receiver I used for this plot is an M12+ timer. The reason for the increased resolution is that the M12+T uses a 16.384MHz clock, and that it can place the pulse on both the rising and falling edges of the clock. This means that the M12+T has a 30ns granularity, resulting in a +/-15ns amplitude of the sawtooth (jitter). Note that these are all "perfect world" numbers, which is why they are expressed as 1 Sigma values. Actual realizable performance ultimately depends on how good the underlying code running the GPS receiver is. This is why we all ultimately rely on the experts in the timing community (many of whom are on this list) to test and publish "real world" numbers, instead of some marketeer's spin on the performance of the receiver he happens to hawking at the time..... Sorry for the long post.... Randy Warner Senior Applications Engineer Synergy Systems, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________ ____________________ -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Rabel Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 9:39 AM To: 'Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement' Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Best GPS 1PPS Accuracy One problem is that older GPS receiver spec sheets give numbers with SA on, even though SA has been off for quite some time, so their numbers will be inherently higher. Probably the most accurate GPS receiver today would be the Motorola M12M Timing. I would go into more detail but I'm about to head out the door. I'm sure others will chime in on this soon. There were some posts a few days ago about some new papers that were published, there is some good info on the various recent versions of the Motorola receivers... Might want to check that out. Jason > Can someone explain the accuracy numbers that are represented in specs > for GPS > receivers? > I find that Trimble says the Resolution T > (http://www.trimble.com/resolutiont.shtml) has 15 ns (1 Sigma) like > the M12+. > So I guess the real question is; are you comparing apples to apples > when the > standard deviation (Sigma) is specified? > Another question is; what's the most accurate GPS receiver module available? I > realize this is only as accurate at the antenna system, but I'll save > a multipath discussion for later. _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list [email protected] https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list [email protected] https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list [email protected] https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
