Hi

Actually your “best case” is where the clock in the Res-T is *not*  
12.50400000000000 MHz or  a frequency that is +/- (N * 40 ppb) of that 
frequency. If it is, you get a “hanging bridge” in the data. At +/- (N * 20 
ppb) you don’t get the classic hanging bridge, but you still get a bias. All of 
that assumes for simplicity that the sawtooth is at 40 ns rather than just a 
bit off from there. 

Bob

On Sep 14, 2014, at 2:06 PM, Tom Van Baak <[email protected]> wrote:

>> They say that the system clock is 12.504 MHz and that they use both the
>> rising and falling edges.   That is about 40 nS between quantization time
>> slots.   The PPS can only appear on a 40 nS edge.   I should be seeing 
>> 40 nS jumps in the waveforms.   I do see ~40 nS jumps but they are less 
>> common.
> 
> "The PPS can only appear on a 40 ns edge" -- of the imprecise, unstable, 
> uncompensated, unshielded, crystal oscillator on the Resolution-T board. It 
> may be 12.504 MHz, but it certainly isn't (and not intended to be) 
> 12.504000000 MHz. There's also instability in your 'scope or counter. Thus 
> you will see significant jitter, drift, and wander in the observed 40 ns 
> edges. All this is normal and expected any time you "beat" two oscillators 
> against each other.
> 
> The net result is that the jumps are very evenly (and not Gaussian) 
> distributed anywhere from 0 ns to 40 ns. Again, look at the raw data, plots, 
> and histograms that I provided. Especially the "zebra" plots which show just 
> how varied the sawtooth error is over the span of minutes, hours, and days:
> 
> http://leapsecond.com/pages/MG1613S/tic-72-hour.gif (3600x1800 pixels!)
> 
>> The waveform timing is clearly quantized but I am seeing ~2 nS jumps.
>> My scope is a Rigol DS2202 which samples at 1 GSP in 2 channel mode.
>> Could this 2 nS quantization be a result of the scope?   Perhaps I should
>> get my 400 MHz analog scope out (Tek 2465B) and repeat the measurements?
> 
> Off-list you mentioned you don't have a ns or sub-ns time interval counter, 
> so yes, I guess you should try the analog 'scope. I'm wondering now if your 
> GPS receiver more stable than your scope's timebase.
> 
> /tvb
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

Reply via email to