Sorry, but what is "Oscillator Frequency"? It's not the tune-in frequency, I assume?
On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 12:36:35 AM UTC+1, rich T wrote: > > 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 >>>> >>>
