On 25/09/11 08:35, Javier Serrano wrote:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 1:36 AM, Magnus Danielson<
[email protected]> wrote:
I was about to ask for the specific papers of time calibrations, even if
the overview presentation indicates that the verification steps I expect to
be there have been done. Also the path calibrations needs to be described
more in detail than in the paper.
I'll discuss with Pablo to see how we can put more stuff on the web.
First thought was that someone forgot to compensate for GPS antenna cable
delays.
We did not forget. The two GPS calibration campaigns (zero baseline and
portable receiver) were done with antenna and antenna cable included.
I assumed so from the statements relating to time, in particular the PTB
time transfer test proving a 2,3 ns difference. Which still doesn't
satisfy my curiosity.
A 60 ns offset between the sites would account for the "missing time".
Similarly a 18 m shorter distance would also account for the "missing
time". Due to the large distance I would start in that end to ensure it
works.
This article puts focus into precission time-transfer between two sites.
Do you have direct fiber between the locations?
You mean between CERN and Gran Sasso? No, but that's certainly something we
could explore for the future.
A fiber-based time-transfer would be nice complementary as it would
provide an independent timing path.
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.
