[time-nuts] FMT 2006 results

Rex rexa at sonic.net
Thu Jan 4 04:30:11 EST 2007


John and others,

I didn't play in this game so I haven't been paying close attention to
the contest or results. In my skimming of the messages I think I am
hearing that several knowledgeable people came out with results close to
each other but offset from the "winning" results.

If I am correct in my assessment, seems like the ARRL should be made
aware that the process or the specification of the contest signal may be
lacking in some details.

What do you think was the issue? Was it a modulated carrier on SSB with
some residual rather than pure CW?

If there is some consensus of close mis-measured results in this group,
seems like the ARRL needs to be informed about it so exactly what the
signal is  is described or the contest is modified with a better pure CW
carrier in the future.

Am I right, or am I completely missing the point in some way?

-Rex

On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 00:54:34 -0600, "Connie Marshall"
<connie.marshall at suddenlink.net> wrote:

>Looks good John.... Our readdings are within .03Hz on 160, .1Hz on 80, and
>.06Hz on 40 of each other.
>
>Connie
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: time-nuts-bounces at febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-bounces at febo.com]On
>Behalf Of John Ackermann N8UR
>Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 9:33 AM
>To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
>Subject: [time-nuts] FMT 2006 results
>
>
>I've put my FMT results at http://www.febo.com/time-freq/fmt/fmt2006/
>based on the preliminary numbers from ARRL that Connie posted here.
>
>As I noted earlier, I screwed up the math and ended up being off on all
>three bands by 75 to 110 Hz -- double the delta between W1AW and my
>marker, because I did USB math when the receivers were set to LSB.
>
>After correcting that error, I was -0.295 Hz on 160, -0.343 Hz on 40,
>and -1.066 Hz on 40.  That's a bit more like it, though the error on 40
>is interesting, and I see that a few other folks saw that problem, too.
> We'll have to wait for the final results from W1AW to see if their 40M
>frequency had a typo.
>
>I think a couple of other folks noted, as did I, that on 40M there
>appeared to be two signals close to each other (I measured about 0.5
>Hz).  An FFT with enough resolution to separate them lost any ability to
>look for CW in the waterfall, so I had to guess which was the correct
>signal.  I chose the sharper one, which was the higher frequency of the
>two; had I picked the one that was more smeared out, I would have been
>more like -0.5 Hz off.
>
>I've learned my lesson -- from now on, all measurements will be taken in
>USB mode!
>
>John
>
>_______________________________________________
>time-nuts mailing list
>time-nuts at febo.com
>https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>time-nuts mailing list
>time-nuts at febo.com
>https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts




More information about the time-nuts mailing list