[time-nuts] WWV Doppler Shift
Bob kb8tq
kb8tq at n1k.org
Tue Nov 20 23:43:08 UTC 2018
Hi
Having looked at WWV with a Carrier -> BFO -> audio card approach (and a radio
locked to an Rb standard …) you have dig a bit to find a situation that is
beyond a tenth of a ppm. If you average over minutes or tens of minutes (which
is exactly what you do with WWVB) the only time you get past 0.1 ppm is the
same sort of day/night propagation mode shift that drives WWVB nuts ….
Bob
> On Nov 20, 2018, at 5:35 PM, Donald E. Pauly <trojancowboy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That was the first time that I had seen an xy plot of WWV versus a
> stable crystal oscillator. It is even worse than I thought. I had to
> look up FRK to see that it is a rubidium standard. I talked to Jim
> Maxton the chief engineer of WWVB many times around 1995. At the time
> I was in Gila Bend 80 miles southwest of Phoenix. He had a Hewlett
> Packard cesium standard at Ft Collins. They were using a dual view
> GEOS Geostationary satellite to set the cesium to match the master
> clock in Boulder. If the cesium was good to 10^-13, that is 8.6 μs
> per day. I can't remember how close he tried to keep it or how often
> he adjusted it. It looked like that I could determine the start of
> the second to the individual transmitter cycle. Time transfer
> accuracy was therefore limited to the height changes of the ionosphere
> at sunrise and sunset.
>
> The main disturbance was wind blowing the antenna. Ordinarily the
> phase would jitter a few degrees per second. I could tell the wind
> speed by the phase jitter without checking the Ft Collins weather. If
> memory serves, the loaded Q at 60 kc was about 200. A half percent
> tuning error caused a 45° phase error. I have seen a 45° excursions
> on several occasions over a minute more than once. My receiver had a
> slow lock mode that could spot them. It also had a 45° phase switch
> on the 100 kc local oscillator to eliminate the station ID from 10 to
> 15 minutes after the hour. There was therefore no disturbance in lock
> during it. I was never able to measure any error in the 45° phase
> advance. One degree would have been obvious.
>
> When I first got my receiver going, the phase would advance nearly 40°
> at the start of the second when the power was reduced by 10 db. It
> had been doing so for years and nobody noticed it. Maxton took an
> unneeded condenser out of his time code generator which fixed most of
> it. The new transmitter fixed the rest.
>
> Ft Collins is at 5,003 ft and clocks there run fast by 1.663·10^-13.
> (g/c^2)/meter) compared to sea level. How did you correct for
> altitude on yours? I presume that frequency is defined at sea level
> but I don't know that. Sea level clocks at the North or South Poles
> run fast relative to those at equator sea level by 1.192·10^-12.
>
> WB0KVV
> πθ°μΩω±√·÷Γλφ|Δ
>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 9:06 AM jimlux <jimlux at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/20/18 1:54 AM, ew via time-nuts wrote:
>>> Starting 1970 I used a modified Tracor 599H on WWVB with excellent results. It had a mechanical counter with 100 nsec, resolution. Noisy but perfect. Yes you have to take Ionosphere sunrise and sunset in to consideration and the hourly shift, but being a very early riser 4AM because of Europe no problem. Better than 2 E-11 per day and 4 E-14 per month.
>>>
>>> In the 90 ties with my FRK having temperature and aging control frequency was better than 1 E-12 all the time.
>>>
>>> Bert Kehren
>>> In a message dated 11/19/2018 9:58:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, trojancowboy at gmail.com writes:
>>>
>>> HF propagation of WWV or WWVH is horrible compared to VLF propagationof WWVB at 60 kc. In this video the 5 mc WWV signal from Ft Collins,Colorado is being received in New Jersey. It was compared against astable 5mc crystal source. You can see a shift of a few cycles persecond over a few seconds. This is due to the movement up or down ofthe ionosphere at a substantial fraction of the speed of sound.
>>
>> In general terms, the coherence time of the ionosphere is single digit
>> seconds - that is, there's essentially no correlation between
>> propagation path at one time and the propagation path 10 seconds later.
>>
>> The "general length" of the path will be the same, but the details
>> different.
>>
>> The actual ionization in the ionosphere can best be described as moving
>> "clouds" there's a fair amount of spatial inhomogeneity. In the same
>> sense that milk reflects light from a multitude of little fat globules.
>
> _______________________________________________
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at lists.febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
> and follow the instructions there.
More information about the Time-nuts_lists.febo.com
mailing list