[time-nuts] GPSDO recovery from holdover
Azelio Boriani
azelio.boriani at screen.it
Sun Dec 2 13:40:18 UTC 2012
As usual I cannot refrain to make my mistake: seconds for minutes... yes,
it is 13 minutes not 13 hours.
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 3:54 AM, Bob Camp <lists at rtty.us> wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> 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
> >
>
> Bob
>
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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