Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25547 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2004 17:04:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ptb-mxscan02.plus.net) (212.159.14.236) by ptb-mailstore03.plus.net with SMTP; 9 Mar 2004 17:04:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 61563 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2004 17:04:39 -0000 X-Filtered-by: Plusnet (hmail v1.01) X-Spam-detection-level: 11 Received: from ptb-mxcore02.plus.net (212.159.14.216) by ptb-mxscan02.plus.net with SMTP; 9 Mar 2004 17:04:33 -0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com ([193.82.116.20]) by ptb-mxcore02.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1B0kee-000FYU-Ty for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Tue, 09 Mar 2004 17:04:33 +0000 X-Fake-Domain: majordom Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1B0kdr-0006Q7-0u for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2004 17:03:43 +0000 Received: from [217.116.0.34] (helo=correo2.acens.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1B0kdp-0006Py-2Q for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2004 17:03:41 +0000 Received: (qmail 407 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2004 17:03:39 -0000 X-Fake-Domain: unknown Received: from unknown (HELO salon) ([81.60.58.114]) (envelope-sender ) by correo2.acens.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 9 Mar 2004 17:03:38 -0000 From: "Manuel Santos Greve" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 18:03:39 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: <404DB140.4040408@usa.net> Importance: Normal Subject: LF: RE: Ionospheric doppler ? Madrid Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-PN-SPAMFiltered: yes X-Spam-Rating: 1 Dear Alberto: I think you must make the comparation, but not whith the Conrad Clock. You musk take the pulse make from the RF signal in 77,5 KHz. Good luck Manuel Santos EA4BVZ -----Mensaje original----- De: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org]En nombre de Alberto di Bene Enviado el: martes, 09 de marzo de 2004 12:58 Para: LF Mailing List Asunto: LF: Ionospheric doppler ? Hello Group, I made yesterday an interesting experiment and would like to know your opinions about it. Waiting for the weather to become such to allow me to go on my roof to install there a GPS antenna, in the meantime I started to play with an inexpensive radio-controlled clock, made by Conrad, bought a few years ago at the Friedrichshafen Messe in Germany, which receives the DCF-77 signal. This clock has an output meant to drive an external electro-mechanical hand clock, and on this output there is, of course, an 1pps pulse. I have an HP-5328B Counter, with a 10811 OCXO which is always (24/7) on. My shack is in the basement, with a constant temperature of 21 Celsius, no drafts, so any variations in the measured frequency or time is real, and not an artifact of the counter. The 5328 has a sort of reciprocal counting feature, where you can use an external signal as a gate for an internal 100 MHz oscillator, phase locked to the OCXO. In addition you can prescale the external signal. So what I did was to prescale by ten the 1pps signal from the clock, then used this 10 second interval to count the internal 100 MHz oscillator, giving a resolution of 1 ns. If everything were perfect, I should have obtained a count of exactly 10^9. What I measured was a value that differed from the ideal by an amount slowly changing with time, ranging from -80 ns to + 120 ns. The count was very consistent from period to period, showing no short term random jitter. In one case I measured a variation of about 100 ns in a time lapse of roughly one hour. I am by no means an expert in propagations and ionospheric effects, so my question is : are the values I measured compatible with what is known about ionospheric doppler ? If not, what else could be an explanation of that slow change ? I would tend to exclude, for the reasons reported above, an artifact of the HP counter. Thanks for any explanations 73 Alberto I2PHD