> Ahh. Very interesting explanation. So is it somewhat correct to assume > (yes, > I know) that for a stationary (non-mobile) environment, these extra sats > dont make much difference? This seems to be what the explanation is > saying.
Pretty much, although if your view of the satellites is obscured and you can't cut trees, the extra birds capability might help some. > Ok. So let me see. For a frequency standard for use in lab equipment, it > appears that short term, phase noise and other sources of noise are the > things to be concerned with to get better results. These seem to really > be accomplished with a good oxco. Yes. However, if I want a very accurate > time-of-day clock for long periods of time, then I need long term > stability which is where the GPS comes in. Do I have this right? Yes. > So if I want a really souped-up freq standard for my lab, then I should > concentrate on finding the best oxco I can (which may be disciplined by > the > GPS or manually occasionally calibrated to GPS), and use the best power > supply I can find. These seem to be what I should concentrate on rather > than more channels. Yes, and a distribution amp that has good reverse isolation and low phase noise. > I do believe that I read some stuff on the internet that the HP GPS DO's > do > seem to have very good power supplies (or converters) which contribute to > low spurs. So it seems the HP's do have a real advantage (not just the > name). Don't know. > Thanks to everyone for the help (hope I am getting the idea here!) > > 73 Eugene W2HX Best, -John =============== _______________________________________________ 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.
