Michael Baker skrev: > Hello, TimeNutters-- > > John Miles, KE5FX wrote: > > Well, sure, it's more accurate than the undisciplined > > OCXO in the counter, that's the idea behind the Thunderbolt. :) > > [email protected] wrote: > > I just wanted to ask the group if the > > Thunderbolt would be more accurate than the internal reference? I > > want to think it is but my link to the thunderbolt spec sheet is > > no longer valid. > ------------------------------------- > > Some time ago, I took my T-bolt over to the Metrology and > Standards Lab at the University of Florida and set it up > to run overnight and let it do its full survey process. > > In spite of the fact that the antenna was in a rather poor > location it locked up quickly and seemed to run flawlessly. > > The monitoring was only intended to look at the frequency > accuracy of the 10 MHz output-- other timing characteristics > so dear to Time-Nuts hearts were ignored. > > After its overnight warm-up and survey process was done, > we found (over a period of 48 hours) that the 10MHz output > was never worse than 1.0 X E-12 and was generally better than > that by a considerable margin about 90% of the time.
You should have logged the reported frequency error and compared with the logged error. An average over a longer period would probably go deeper. But it does show the potential for getting pretty good accuracy for a small lab at a reasnoble cost. You should monitor the condition of the receiver to ensure you are locked, and preferably log the frequency error to be able to see any deviations. Cheers, Magnus _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
