if it turns out that there really is an anomaly on 40M, we'll let ARRL know; last year they were off by about 0.4Hz on 160M so something like this isn't a first.
One problem is that they really don't aim the test at the time-nuts crowd, and frankly their measurement system isn't at the level some of us would like to see. And the change of transmitter hardware this year didn't help. I don't want to go into details on the list, but there is some activity going on to try to improve the situation next year. John ----- Rex wrote: > John and others, > > I didn't play in this game so I haven't been paying close attention to > the contest or results. In my skimming of the messages I think I am > hearing that several knowledgeable people came out with results close to > each other but offset from the "winning" results. > > If I am correct in my assessment, seems like the ARRL should be made > aware that the process or the specification of the contest signal may be > lacking in some details. > > What do you think was the issue? Was it a modulated carrier on SSB with > some residual rather than pure CW? > > If there is some consensus of close mis-measured results in this group, > seems like the ARRL needs to be informed about it so exactly what the > signal is is described or the contest is modified with a better pure CW > carrier in the future. > > Am I right, or am I completely missing the point in some way? > > -Rex > > On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 00:54:34 -0600, "Connie Marshall" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Looks good John.... Our readdings are within .03Hz on 160, .1Hz on 80, and >> .06Hz on 40 of each other. >> >> Connie >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Behalf Of John Ackermann N8UR >> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 9:33 AM >> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement >> Subject: [time-nuts] FMT 2006 results >> >> >> I've put my FMT results at http://www.febo.com/time-freq/fmt/fmt2006/ >> based on the preliminary numbers from ARRL that Connie posted here. >> >> As I noted earlier, I screwed up the math and ended up being off on all >> three bands by 75 to 110 Hz -- double the delta between W1AW and my >> marker, because I did USB math when the receivers were set to LSB. >> >> After correcting that error, I was -0.295 Hz on 160, -0.343 Hz on 40, >> and -1.066 Hz on 40. That's a bit more like it, though the error on 40 >> is interesting, and I see that a few other folks saw that problem, too. >> We'll have to wait for the final results from W1AW to see if their 40M >> frequency had a typo. >> >> I think a couple of other folks noted, as did I, that on 40M there >> appeared to be two signals close to each other (I measured about 0.5 >> Hz). An FFT with enough resolution to separate them lost any ability to >> look for CW in the waterfall, so I had to guess which was the correct >> signal. I chose the sharper one, which was the higher frequency of the >> two; had I picked the one that was more smeared out, I would have been >> more like -0.5 Hz off. >> >> I've learned my lesson -- from now on, all measurements will be taken in >> USB mode! >> >> John >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list [email protected] https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
