[time-nuts] ok, newbie questions

[W2HX]

Yes I agree a newer thunderbolt would surely suffice for me and probably also the ocxo in my 8662A synth

But I am still academically curious about the impact of more channels of satellites? What is the value of these extra sats? 
Thanks!

On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 13:01:12 -0500,  wrote:
> Hi
> 
> First option would be to dig into what you already have. There may be a pretty good OCXO in something on your bench.
> 
> Any TBolt with a date code past 2001 should have a good OCXO in it. It's plenty good enough for what you are trying to do.
> 
> Bob
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Nov 25, 2010, at 11:48 PM, "W2HX" <w2hx at w2hx.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi all, I am sure my questions have been asked before. Unfortunately, the
> > mailman style archives are so hard to search through. So forgive me my
> > transgressions. Happy wil> > answers my questions. Don't need new answers if old ones suffice. (of course
> > new answers always welcome!)
> > 
> > I am looking for a 10 MHz standard for my lab.  Accuracy/stability probably
> > wouldn't make a hill of beans difference in the stuff I do, so my questions
> > are more academic and it's just nice knowing I have a "really good"
> > standard.
> > 
> > 1. So from reading about this topic on KE5FX.com I understand that a better
> > ocxo makes for better phase noise and near-term quality.  I also understand
> > that some later tbolts had a very good ocxo in them and therefore would not
> > benefit significantly from an upgrade as ke5fx did using an HP 10811 unit.
> > I am considering a thunderbolt advertised on ebay by "flyingbest." I will be
> > traveling to China (mainland, and Hong Kong) on business the last two weeks
> > in December so I might save some shipping.  Here is a photo. Can anyone tell
> > me if this unit has a  "better" 10811-class ocxo or "not so good "ocxo? I
> > also understand that not all ocxo's are created equal, even if they are the
> > same model number.
> > 
> > http://tinyurl.com/2dg2dz3
> > 
> > 2. Other GPS DO units seem to differ on the number of satellites they can
> > receive from simultaneously (channels). Wha> > standard that can see 6,8 or 16 birds? Is noise averaged out? Is
> > stability/phase noise improved? Here is an example of a 16 sat unit.  Anyone
> > have any experience with this unit? Good/bad indifferent? It seems they can
> > be had for about $200.
> > 
> > http://tinyurl.com/2ad5kls
> > 
> > 3. And then there is the venerable HP units like this one.  I understand
> > this uses the 10811 ocxo. Other than the better ocxo, is there anything
> > inherently superior about these HP units to warrant the additional cost? Or
> > are we mostly just paying for the HP name?  This one is 6 sats.
> > 
> > http://tinyurl.com/24tkwdv
> > 
> > Lastly, my use of a 10 MHz standard will be for use in equipment like
> > microwave counters (EIP 548A), Spectrum analyzers (HP 8658B) VNA's (HP
> > 3577A, 8753C to 6 GHz), synthesizer (HP 3326A and HP 8662A), premium
> > receivers (Harris 590H), etc., etc. For these purposes, is a GPS DO advised,
> > or perhaps a rubidium standard? For example, I don't need this to power a
> > clock. Just a good, clean, stable signal with low noise, low spurs, etc.
> > 
> > What's the overall opinion? THANKS !!!!
> > 
> > (here's to hoping this message looks better than the first two tests I made)
> > 73 Eugene W2HX
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >                                                
> > 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.

-- 
73 Eugene W2HX