[time-nuts] GPSDO recovery from holdover

Bob Camp lists at rtty.us
Sun Dec 2 02:54:59 UTC 2012


On Dec 1, 2012, at 8:13 PM, SAIDJACK at aol.com wrote:

> Hi Magnus,
> yup, at the levels we are interested in, a prefix or two sometimes doesn't  
> make any real difference :)
> Most of the time typical GPSDO's won't ever drift out of a say  +/-100ns 
> window. If they do, then the antenna must have been shot off by  someone, or 
> something else must have gone horribly wrong.
> Just for fun I attached two phase correction examples from a FireFly-IIA,  
> and a CSAC GPSDO. Both were essentially brand new and not yet calibrated 
> when  turned on, and thus you can see a large EFC variation over the first 15 
> minutes  or so as the frequency stabilized.
> Then you can see the phase stabilize slowly, this takes about 1.2 hours for 
> the FF-IIA with a much more aggressive loop setting, and about 3 hours for 
> the  CSAC GPSDO.
> The most perplexing fact for me is that while you can clearly see the exact 
> point at which the phase has stabilized, you cannot really see any 
> corresponding  change in EFC behavior at that time. You can see a large EFC voltage 
> change  initially as the frequency stabilizes after power-on, but then it 
> goes into the  noise floor. This shows that the EFC corrections for phase 
> error are essentially  smaller than the proportional noise floor of the loop!
Driving an integrator is never an easy thing. Watching EFC and looking at phase indeed watching the loop drive an integrator. 

> The maximum phase error in these plots was about 100ns for the CSAC,  and 
> 230ns for the FF-IIA. Here we can see that the FF-IIA has a much more  
> aggressive loop approach (~5x more gain on the phase correction). Since the CSAC  
> is an atomic clock we can increase the time constant quite a bit and make 
> the  loop much less aggressive.
> bye,
> Said


> In a message dated 12/1/2012 14:39:58 Pacific Standard Time,  
> magnus at rubidium.dyndns.org writes:
> One can  also wonder if the limit is relevant, as you are about to 
> resolve a rather  catastrophic situation where you already cause 
> interference, so moving out  of it quickly should be first priority and 
> only when back to reasonable  time-error would it be relevant to obey 
> frequency error limits.
> The  transmitters and the recievers would be able to follow, as they have 
> large  enough bandwidth for it.
>> But if you set the loop parameters more  aggressively to 1ns/s as in your
>> example, it would take less than 20  minutes to correct 1us.. Not 12hrs.
>> Unless you meant to say  ms?
> What's a off by one prefix among friends?
> But still, one has  to be  careful.
> Cheers,
> Magnus
> <phase_corrections.zip>_______________________________________________
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.

More information about the time-nuts mailing list