Hi Eugene, >From your comments and equipment list I guess you are looking for low noise >and stability rather than absolute accuracy. In this case I'd go ro a 10811 >OCXO. Check to make sure none of you existing equipment doesn't have one >already They were commonly fitted as high stab options. For calibration you >can use a GPS with 1PPS output. The Timing versions are best. A quick check >shows Resolution T's and Oncore timing boards available on ebay. There are >also integrated antenna / receivers (HP/Symmetricom 58534A ) for under >$50. You also need a 'scope. Triggger the scope from the 1PPS. Monitor the >OCXO output and adjust for zero drift across the screen. Next up you will want to look a TBolt ;-). Welcome to the Nuthouse! Robert G8RPI.
--- On Fri, 26/11/10, W2HX <[email protected]> wrote: From: W2HX <[email protected]> Subject: [time-nuts] ok, newbie questions To: [email protected] Date: Friday, 26 November, 2010, 4:48 Hi all, I am sure my questions have been asked before. Unfortunately, the mailman style archives are so hard to search through. So forgive me my transgressions. Happy will I be to get a reference to an old thread that answers my questions. Don't need new answers if old ones suffice. (of course new answers always welcome!) I am looking for a 10 MHz standard for my lab. Accuracy/stability probably wouldn't make a hill of beans difference in the stuff I do, so my questions are more academic and it's just nice knowing I have a "really good" standard. 1. So from reading about this topic on KE5FX.com I understand that a better ocxo makes for better phase noise and near-term quality. I also understand that some later tbolts had a very good ocxo in them and therefore would not benefit significantly from an upgrade as ke5fx did using an HP 10811 unit. I am considering a thunderbolt advertised on ebay by "flyingbest." I will be traveling to China (mainland, and Hong Kong) on business the last two weeks in December so I might save some shipping. Here is a photo. Can anyone tell me if this unit has a "better" 10811-class ocxo or "not so good "ocxo? I also understand that not all ocxo's are created equal, even if they are the same model number. http://tinyurl.com/2dg2dz3 2. Other GPS DO units seem to differ on the number of satellites they can receive from simultaneously (channels). What is the net effect of having a standard that can see 6,8 or 16 birds? Is noise averaged out? Is stability/phase noise improved? Here is an example of a 16 sat unit. Anyone have any experience with this unit? Good/bad indifferent? It seems they can be had for about $200. http://tinyurl.com/2ad5kls 3. And then there is the venerable HP units like this one. I understand this uses the 10811 ocxo. Other than the better ocxo, is there anything inherently superior about these HP units to warrant the additional cost? Or are we mostly just paying for the HP name? This one is 6 sats. http://tinyurl.com/24tkwdv Lastly, my use of a 10 MHz standard will be for use in equipment like microwave counters (EIP 548A), Spectrum analyzers (HP 8658B) VNA's (HP 3577A, 8753C to 6 GHz), synthesizer (HP 3326A and HP 8662A), premium receivers (Harris 590H), etc., etc. For these purposes, is a GPS DO advised, or perhaps a rubidium standard? For example, I don't need this to power a clock. Just a good, clean, stable signal with low noise, low spurs, etc. What's the overall opinion? THANKS !!!! (here's to hoping this message looks better than the first two tests I made) 73 Eugene W2HX _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
