I own a 1996 since 20 years and use it on a regular base. While I do not fully understand the measurement arrangement in the first part of your posting I can tell you that I get wrong readings from my 1996 as well with a low propability. It might run ok over hours and then produce a completely wrong result for a single measurement. I am not sure whether this is a hardware or a software bug. It may be a software bug but with the electrolyt capacitors in it perhaps 30 yeras old I expect some of it to have lost part of their capacity so I can well imagine that the device might react more sensitive on anything happen on the power line than when it was young.
Regarding part 2 of your posting: Imagine the 1996 basically as an time interval counter ha > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von tom jones > Gesendet: Samstag, 3. März 2007 02:39 > An: [email protected] > Betreff: [time-nuts] Dana Racal 1996 Questions > > > Anybody using either 1996 or 1995 racal counters. > I use my hp5061a for external reference to both counters > The racals are continously in mean average mode (10000 > seconds).with a different > 1pps signals to the racal counters.. > Occasionaly the counters present a reading like 10.0 -3 (10ms) > The expected readings should be 0.001 -9 (1ps) > > Anybody else using dana racal experience this. It seems > like a software bug? > > Question number two; > The readings from these racals seem off . > I get a reading like 0.001 -9 equals 1X10 -12 I belive > its decimal point mighy be off. > I'm thinking it should be .0001 -9 equaling 1X10-13 When > I interpet the readings with the extra digit of accuracy the > readings make more sense and correlate with my austorn loran > frequency & timing receivers and other counters and gps 1pps signals. > > To also support my theory the racal counters will resolve > 1X10 -11 using 99 (100s) second gate time. when I activate > the mean average mode this extends the gate time two more > decimal places (10000 second gate) wouldn't you assume a > resultt of 2 more digits in accuracy ? > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Don't pick lemons. > See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. > _______________________________________________ > 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
