[time-nuts] Thunderbolt accuracy...??

[Magnus Danielson]

Michael Baker skrev:
> Hello, TimeNutters--
> 
> John Miles, KE5FX wrote:
>  > Well, sure, it's more accurate than the undisciplined
>  > OCXO in the counter, that's the idea behind the Thunderbolt.  :)
> 
> n3izn at aol.com wrote:
>  > I just wanted to ask the group if the
>  > Thunderbolt would be more accurate than the internal reference? I
>  > want to think it is but my link to the thunderbolt spec sheet is
>  > no longer valid.
> -------------------------------------
> 
> Some time ago, I took my T-bolt over to the Metrology and
> Standards Lab at the University of Florida and set it up
> to run overnight and let it do its full survey process.
> 
> In spite of the fact that the antenna was in a rather poor
> location it locked up quickly and seemed to run flawlessly.
> 
> The monitoring was only intended to look at the frequency
> accuracy of the 10 MHz output-- other timing characteristics
> so dear to Time-Nuts hearts were ignored.
> 
> After its overnight warm-up and survey process was done,
> we found (over a period of 48 hours) that the 10MHz output
> was never worse than 1.0 X E-12 and was generally better than
> that by a considerable margin about 90% of the time.

You should have logged the reported frequency error and compared with 
the logged error. An average over a longer period would probably go deeper.

But it does show the potential for getting pretty good accuracy for a 
small lab at a reasnoble cost. You should monitor the condition of the 
receiver to ensure you are locked, and preferably log the frequency 
error to be able to see any deviations.

Cheers,
Magnus