Kobuki I use Kalibrate to determine the ppm. Works pretty good. The formula I used was ppm * Oscillator Frequency / 1000000.
Rich On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 7:21:40 PM UTC-4, kobuki wrote: > > Absolute error, based on PPM: measured_ppm / 1 000 000 * F - for F = 911 > MHz or F = 911 000 000 Hz it gives 225.928 Hz. But any decent AFC should > correct differences of 5-10 kHz with ease, or even more. This is negligible. > > What are you calibrating with and what is the reference frequency source? > Just out of curiosity. > > On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 12:13:41 AM UTC+1, rich T wrote: >> >> Luc >> >> The dongle I'm using that been running for over a week now, so warming up >> should not be a issue. The dongle ppm error is + 0.248. I believe that is >> about 5 Hz, but I might be wrong. I also tried the RFM69 sources >> frequencies and get the same results. Let go back to the original fc and >> change the timing just see what happens. >> >> Rich >> >> On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 6:45:05 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote: >> >>> Rich and Paul, >>> >>> I am puzzled by the fact that after the first received message on >>> channel zero 5 messages in a row are missed AND after the next init NO >>> SINGLE message is missed for a long period.. >>> >>> I Don't think it has to to with warming up of the dongle, but it can >>> have an influence. >>> >>> Another possibility is a to precise (time-out) timing. This is important >>> when the program has to scan more than one transmitter but is less critical >>> when only one transmitter is read. >>> >>> Could you both try to add the -ex parameter for extra loop timing? >>> >>> Try values such as '-ex 65' to '-ex 200' (ms). Maybe the percentage of >>> missed signals will drop then. >>> >>> Luc >>> >>
