Hi, all The question of phase shifts in cables pops up every now and then on this list - I stumbled across a good table of measured phase shifts with temperature in different cable types in this paper: http://www.ira.inaf.it/eratec/gothenburg/presentations/ERATEC_2014_PresentationWSchaefer.pdf that I though would be of interest to others. A quick summary given below, see pdf for full details. Lots of other interesting stuff in there also. Values in ppm/K, for 10 Mhz except when otherwise stated. (The paper gives values for 5, 10 and 100Mhz) Huber-Suhner Multiflex 141: -6 RG-223: -131.9 Semiflex Cable: -11.5 Huber-Suhner: -8.6 Times Microwave LMR-240: -3.4 Times Microwave SFT-205: 7.7 Meggitt 2T693 SiO2: 30.6 Andrew FSJ-1 (@5Mhz): 25 Andrew FSJ-4 (@5Mhz): 10 Andrew LDF-1P-50-42: 2.8 Andrew LDF4-50A: 4.7 Times Microwave TF4FLEX (@100Mhz):6.4 Phasetrack PT210 (@100Mhz): 2 Ole

I should have mentioned this in the original post - the measurements were not taken on the same cable length. Beware, and consult paper. Ole On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 7:52 AM, Ole Petter Ronningen <opronningen@gmail.com > wrote: > Hi, all > > The question of phase shifts in cables pops up every now and then on this > list - I stumbled across a good table of measured phase shifts with > temperature in different cable types in this paper: > http://www.ira.inaf.it/eratec/gothenburg/presentations/ERATEC_2014_ > PresentationWSchaefer.pdf that I though would be of interest to others. > > A quick summary given below, see pdf for full details. Lots of other > interesting stuff in there also. > > Values in ppm/K, for 10 Mhz except when otherwise stated. (The paper gives > values for 5, 10 and 100Mhz) > > Huber-Suhner Multiflex 141: -6 > RG-223: -131.9 > Semiflex Cable: -11.5 > Huber-Suhner: -8.6 > Times Microwave LMR-240: -3.4 > Times Microwave SFT-205: 7.7 > Meggitt 2T693 SiO2: 30.6 > Andrew FSJ-1 (@5Mhz): 25 > Andrew FSJ-4 (@5Mhz): 10 > Andrew LDF-1P-50-42: 2.8 > Andrew LDF4-50A: 4.7 > Times Microwave TF4FLEX (@100Mhz):6.4 > Phasetrack PT210 (@100Mhz): 2 > > Ole >

On 1/12/17 10:52 PM, Ole Petter Ronningen wrote: > Hi, all > > The question of phase shifts in cables pops up every now and then on this > list - I stumbled across a good table of measured phase shifts with > temperature in different cable types in this paper: > http://www.ira.inaf.it/eratec/gothenburg/presentations/ERATEC_2014_PresentationWSchaefer.pdf > that I though would be of interest to others. > Handy... and they mention the notorious problem with PTFE "Beware of the nonlinear „PTFE“ effect around room temperature (mainly solid PTFE), manufacturers „shift“ that temperature out of practical range, foam and composite dielectrics) Lots of other useful system design info, too..

Hi There’s an interesting comment buried down in that paper about limiting ADEV to < 300 samples per point. Their objective is apparently to better highlight “systematic errors”. I certainly agree that big datasets will swamp this sort of thing. I’m not quite sure that I’d recommend ADEV to find these things in the first place. My guess is that it’s the only spec they have to call the device good or bad in this case …They don’t seem to have Hadamard in their list of variances. If I was going after systematics with a deviation, that’s the one I’d use. Of course I probably would not use a something-dev in the first place. Bob > On Jan 13, 2017, at 1:52 AM, Ole Petter Ronningen <opronningen@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, all > > The question of phase shifts in cables pops up every now and then on this > list - I stumbled across a good table of measured phase shifts with > temperature in different cable types in this paper: > http://www.ira.inaf.it/eratec/gothenburg/presentations/ERATEC_2014_PresentationWSchaefer.pdf > that I though would be of interest to others. > > A quick summary given below, see pdf for full details. Lots of other > interesting stuff in there also. > > Values in ppm/K, for 10 Mhz except when otherwise stated. (The paper gives > values for 5, 10 and 100Mhz) > > Huber-Suhner Multiflex 141: -6 > RG-223: -131.9 > Semiflex Cable: -11.5 > Huber-Suhner: -8.6 > Times Microwave LMR-240: -3.4 > Times Microwave SFT-205: 7.7 > Meggitt 2T693 SiO2: 30.6 > Andrew FSJ-1 (@5Mhz): 25 > Andrew FSJ-4 (@5Mhz): 10 > Andrew LDF-1P-50-42: 2.8 > Andrew LDF4-50A: 4.7 > Times Microwave TF4FLEX (@100Mhz):6.4 > Phasetrack PT210 (@100Mhz): 2 > > Ole > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there.

That IS interesting.. It reads to me that the advice is to keep a "moving 300 pt ADEV" when continously monitoring a (pair of) frequency source in e.g a VLBI site - the reason for limiting it to 300 pts being that much more than that is likely to average out potential issues.. Does that make sense? > Den 13. jan. 2017 kl. 17.04 skrev Bob Camp <kb8tq@n1k.org>: > > Hi > > There’s an interesting comment buried down in that paper about limiting ADEV to > < 300 samples per point. Their objective is apparently to better highlight “systematic > errors”. I certainly agree that big datasets will swamp this sort of thing. I’m not quite > sure that I’d recommend ADEV to find these things in the first place. My guess is that > it’s the only spec they have to call the device good or bad in this case …They don’t seem > to have Hadamard in their list of variances. If I was going after systematics with a deviation, > that’s the one I’d use. Of course I probably would not use a something-dev in the first place. > > Bob > > >> On Jan 13, 2017, at 1:52 AM, Ole Petter Ronningen <opronningen@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, all >> >> The question of phase shifts in cables pops up every now and then on this >> list - I stumbled across a good table of measured phase shifts with >> temperature in different cable types in this paper: >> http://www.ira.inaf.it/eratec/gothenburg/presentations/ERATEC_2014_PresentationWSchaefer.pdf >> that I though would be of interest to others. >> >> A quick summary given below, see pdf for full details. Lots of other >> interesting stuff in there also. >> >> Values in ppm/K, for 10 Mhz except when otherwise stated. (The paper gives >> values for 5, 10 and 100Mhz) >> >> Huber-Suhner Multiflex 141: -6 >> RG-223: -131.9 >> Semiflex Cable: -11.5 >> Huber-Suhner: -8.6 >> Times Microwave LMR-240: -3.4 >> Times Microwave SFT-205: 7.7 >> Meggitt 2T693 SiO2: 30.6 >> Andrew FSJ-1 (@5Mhz): 25 >> Andrew FSJ-4 (@5Mhz): 10 >> Andrew LDF-1P-50-42: 2.8 >> Andrew LDF4-50A: 4.7 >> Times Microwave TF4FLEX (@100Mhz):6.4 >> Phasetrack PT210 (@100Mhz): 2 >> >> Ole >> _______________________________________________ >> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@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@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there.

Hi Corby, I an looking your Pressure Compensation for the HP5065A ad I have a question about the preliminary adjustment of R3. Can you give me the alignment procedure you have used?. I suppose you have used the Pressure chamber looking at the frequency offset. thanks, Luciano

I think you might be overthinking their point, that if you plan to use an xDEV as a measure for state of health, don't use years worth of data. Otherwise it could be days before the xDEV visually changes. On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Bob Camp <kb8tq@n1k.org> wrote: > Hi > > There’s an interesting comment buried down in that paper about limiting > ADEV to > < 300 samples per point. Their objective is apparently to better highlight > “systematic > errors”. I certainly agree that big datasets will swamp this sort of > thing. I’m not quite > sure that I’d recommend ADEV to find these things in the first place. My > guess is that > it’s the only spec they have to call the device good or bad in this case > …They don’t seem > to have Hadamard in their list of variances. If I was going after > systematics with a deviation, > that’s the one I’d use. Of course I probably would not use a something-dev > in the first place. > > Bob > > > > On Jan 13, 2017, at 1:52 AM, Ole Petter Ronningen <opronningen@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi, all > > > > The question of phase shifts in cables pops up every now and then on this > > list - I stumbled across a good table of measured phase shifts with > > temperature in different cable types in this paper: > > http://www.ira.inaf.it/eratec/gothenburg/presentations/ERATEC_2014_ > PresentationWSchaefer.pdf > > that I though would be of interest to others. > > > > A quick summary given below, see pdf for full details. Lots of other > > interesting stuff in there also. > > > > Values in ppm/K, for 10 Mhz except when otherwise stated. (The paper > gives > > values for 5, 10 and 100Mhz) > > > > Huber-Suhner Multiflex 141: -6 > > RG-223: -131.9 > > Semiflex Cable: -11.5 > > Huber-Suhner: -8.6 > > Times Microwave LMR-240: -3.4 > > Times Microwave SFT-205: 7.7 > > Meggitt 2T693 SiO2: 30.6 > > Andrew FSJ-1 (@5Mhz): 25 > > Andrew FSJ-4 (@5Mhz): 10 > > Andrew LDF-1P-50-42: 2.8 > > Andrew LDF4-50A: 4.7 > > Times Microwave TF4FLEX (@100Mhz):6.4 > > Phasetrack PT210 (@100Mhz): 2 > > > > Ole > > _______________________________________________ > > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@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@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/ > mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. >

Hi I do agree with their point that systematics will get buried in giant data blocks. What I’m not quite as sure of is the utility of even 300 sample blocks to spot systematic issues. Bob > On Jan 13, 2017, at 1:08 PM, Scott Stobbe <scott.j.stobbe@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think you might be overthinking their point, that if you plan to use an > xDEV as a measure for state of health, don't use years worth of data. > Otherwise it could be days before the xDEV visually changes. > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Bob Camp <kb8tq@n1k.org> wrote: > >> Hi >> >> There’s an interesting comment buried down in that paper about limiting >> ADEV to >> < 300 samples per point. Their objective is apparently to better highlight >> “systematic >> errors”. I certainly agree that big datasets will swamp this sort of >> thing. I’m not quite >> sure that I’d recommend ADEV to find these things in the first place. My >> guess is that >> it’s the only spec they have to call the device good or bad in this case >> …They don’t seem >> to have Hadamard in their list of variances. If I was going after >> systematics with a deviation, >> that’s the one I’d use. Of course I probably would not use a something-dev >> in the first place. >> >> Bob >> >> >>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 1:52 AM, Ole Petter Ronningen <opronningen@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, all >>> >>> The question of phase shifts in cables pops up every now and then on this >>> list - I stumbled across a good table of measured phase shifts with >>> temperature in different cable types in this paper: >>> http://www.ira.inaf.it/eratec/gothenburg/presentations/ERATEC_2014_ >> PresentationWSchaefer.pdf >>> that I though would be of interest to others. >>> >>> A quick summary given below, see pdf for full details. Lots of other >>> interesting stuff in there also. >>> >>> Values in ppm/K, for 10 Mhz except when otherwise stated. (The paper >> gives >>> values for 5, 10 and 100Mhz) >>> >>> Huber-Suhner Multiflex 141: -6 >>> RG-223: -131.9 >>> Semiflex Cable: -11.5 >>> Huber-Suhner: -8.6 >>> Times Microwave LMR-240: -3.4 >>> Times Microwave SFT-205: 7.7 >>> Meggitt 2T693 SiO2: 30.6 >>> Andrew FSJ-1 (@5Mhz): 25 >>> Andrew FSJ-4 (@5Mhz): 10 >>> Andrew LDF-1P-50-42: 2.8 >>> Andrew LDF4-50A: 4.7 >>> Times Microwave TF4FLEX (@100Mhz):6.4 >>> Phasetrack PT210 (@100Mhz): 2 >>> >>> Ole >>> _______________________________________________ >>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@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@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@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there.

You are certainly justified to be cautious of only using an xDEV for state of health. I don't know what GPS does for example to mark SV's as healthy or not healthy. On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Bob Camp <kb8tq@n1k.org> wrote: > Hi > > I do agree with their point that systematics will get buried in giant data > blocks. > What I’m not quite as sure of is the utility of even 300 sample blocks to > spot > systematic issues. > > Bob > > > On Jan 13, 2017, at 1:08 PM, Scott Stobbe <scott.j.stobbe@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > I think you might be overthinking their point, that if you plan to use an > > xDEV as a measure for state of health, don't use years worth of data. > > Otherwise it could be days before the xDEV visually changes. > > > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Bob Camp <kb8tq@n1k.org> wrote: > > > >> Hi > >> > >> There’s an interesting comment buried down in that paper about limiting > >> ADEV to > >> < 300 samples per point. Their objective is apparently to better > highlight > >> “systematic > >> errors”. I certainly agree that big datasets will swamp this sort of > >> thing. I’m not quite > >> sure that I’d recommend ADEV to find these things in the first place. My > >> guess is that > >> it’s the only spec they have to call the device good or bad in this case > >> …They don’t seem > >> to have Hadamard in their list of variances. If I was going after > >> systematics with a deviation, > >> that’s the one I’d use. Of course I probably would not use a > something-dev > >> in the first place. > >> > >> Bob > >> > >> > >>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 1:52 AM, Ole Petter Ronningen < > opronningen@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, all > >>> > >>> The question of phase shifts in cables pops up every now and then on > this > >>> list - I stumbled across a good table of measured phase shifts with > >>> temperature in different cable types in this paper: > >>> http://www.ira.inaf.it/eratec/gothenburg/presentations/ERATEC_2014_ > >> PresentationWSchaefer.pdf > >>> that I though would be of interest to others. > >>> > >>> A quick summary given below, see pdf for full details. Lots of other > >>> interesting stuff in there also. > >>> > >>> Values in ppm/K, for 10 Mhz except when otherwise stated. (The paper > >> gives > >>> values for 5, 10 and 100Mhz) > >>> > >>> Huber-Suhner Multiflex 141: -6 > >>> RG-223: -131.9 > >>> Semiflex Cable: -11.5 > >>> Huber-Suhner: -8.6 > >>> Times Microwave LMR-240: -3.4 > >>> Times Microwave SFT-205: 7.7 > >>> Meggitt 2T693 SiO2: 30.6 > >>> Andrew FSJ-1 (@5Mhz): 25 > >>> Andrew FSJ-4 (@5Mhz): 10 > >>> Andrew LDF-1P-50-42: 2.8 > >>> Andrew LDF4-50A: 4.7 > >>> Times Microwave TF4FLEX (@100Mhz):6.4 > >>> Phasetrack PT210 (@100Mhz): 2 > >>> > >>> Ole > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@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@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@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@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/ > mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. >

Hi That’s the way I read what they are saying. More or less: Keep the number of samples above 100, but below 300. Bob > On Jan 13, 2017, at 12:30 PM, Ole Petter Rønningen <opronningen@gmail.com> wrote: > > That IS interesting.. It reads to me that the advice is to keep a "moving 300 pt ADEV" when continously monitoring a (pair of) frequency source in e.g a VLBI site - the reason for limiting it to 300 pts being that much more than that is likely to average out potential issues.. > > Does that make sense? > >> Den 13. jan. 2017 kl. 17.04 skrev Bob Camp <kb8tq@n1k.org>: >> >> Hi >> >> There’s an interesting comment buried down in that paper about limiting ADEV to >> < 300 samples per point. Their objective is apparently to better highlight “systematic >> errors”. I certainly agree that big datasets will swamp this sort of thing. I’m not quite >> sure that I’d recommend ADEV to find these things in the first place. My guess is that >> it’s the only spec they have to call the device good or bad in this case …They don’t seem >> to have Hadamard in their list of variances. If I was going after systematics with a deviation, >> that’s the one I’d use. Of course I probably would not use a something-dev in the first place. >> >> Bob >> >> >>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 1:52 AM, Ole Petter Ronningen <opronningen@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, all >>> >>> The question of phase shifts in cables pops up every now and then on this >>> list - I stumbled across a good table of measured phase shifts with >>> temperature in different cable types in this paper: >>> http://www.ira.inaf.it/eratec/gothenburg/presentations/ERATEC_2014_PresentationWSchaefer.pdf >>> that I though would be of interest to others. >>> >>> A quick summary given below, see pdf for full details. Lots of other >>> interesting stuff in there also. >>> >>> Values in ppm/K, for 10 Mhz except when otherwise stated. (The paper gives >>> values for 5, 10 and 100Mhz) >>> >>> Huber-Suhner Multiflex 141: -6 >>> RG-223: -131.9 >>> Semiflex Cable: -11.5 >>> Huber-Suhner: -8.6 >>> Times Microwave LMR-240: -3.4 >>> Times Microwave SFT-205: 7.7 >>> Meggitt 2T693 SiO2: 30.6 >>> Andrew FSJ-1 (@5Mhz): 25 >>> Andrew FSJ-4 (@5Mhz): 10 >>> Andrew LDF-1P-50-42: 2.8 >>> Andrew LDF4-50A: 4.7 >>> Times Microwave TF4FLEX (@100Mhz):6.4 >>> Phasetrack PT210 (@100Mhz): 2 >>> >>> Ole >>> _______________________________________________ >>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@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@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@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there.