[R-390] WWV Time

[w9ya]

The slide rule can give you an accurate answer. But so will pen and paper.
The answer you seek is based on the CORRECT formula being undertaken. (That
or I have no idea what you are seeking.)

Bob
w9ya

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 2:11 PM, george stringe <egnirts at comcast.net> wrote:

> Bob old buddy, I understand what you are saying but that is not the point
> at all about my question......its about the slide rule and the
> interpretation of the beats per second or seconds per beat etc.  Hey I still
> have my old slide rule but it has lots of dust on it.  Others have said they
> are quick and easy but no answers yet..... and I think my 5 Hz
> interpretation  is not correct either.....maybe....
>
> george
> WG0S
>
>
>
> rbethman wrote:
>
>> George,
>>
>> Here is your original message requoted:
>>
>> george stringe wrote:
>>
>>> OK so here is a test for all the slide rule junkies: I have my Wavetek
>>> sig gen all warmed up and my BA Hallicrafter SX-71 tuned to WWV at 2.5Mhz.
>>>  When the generator is
>>> set at  2.50000 Mhz, I am guessing that I get 4 beats/second,  if I set
>>> the gen at 2.50001, I get 2 seconds per beat.  So, what is my generator
>>> accuracy percentage?
>>>
>>> As a second question, which doesn't require a slide rule, how do I reply
>>> or keep messages in the same thread?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> george
>>> WG0S
>>>
>> First problem:  "set at  2.50000 Mhz, I am guessing that I get 4
>> beats/second"
>>
>> So we "begin with a GUESS".  Is the second part ANY more accurate? "if I
>> set the gen at 2.50001, I get 2 seconds per beat."
>>
>> I see NO reason to begin even TRYING to get out the slide rule with that
>> sort of detail, or lack thereof.
>>
>> It is precisely WHY my signal generator sat on the bench - WITH my
>> oscilloscope - for 72 hours in the Electronics Lab/Repair facility.  Their
>> frequency references ARE traceable to NIST.  They have to be for the
>> research they are doing.
>>
>> Bob - N0DGN
>>
>> george stringe wrote:
>>
>>> With all due respects guys, and I appreciate your input but this really
>>> was not an exercise in how to best measure frequency.  Even if I am only 40
>>> miles from the WWV transmitter, I realize it is not perfect, it was just an
>>> exercise for all those who have professed a love for the slide rule....and
>>> as such, the responses are slim so far ;-)  If I am 5 Hz off in 2.5 million,
>>> my calculator says that is .000002 percent.  That can't be correct can it?
>>>
>>> george
>>> WG0S
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Gord Hayward wrote:
>>>
>>>> Using WWV to ascertain the generator accuracy percentage is VERY
>>>>> problematic.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is - the path length is important for absolute time, then there's the
>>>> variance of the reflection height.
>>>> That gives a variable path length as well as a Doppler shift with the
>>>> motion.  WWVB is better.
>>>> Cheers, Gord.
>>>>
>>>
>>  _____________________________________________________________
> R-390 mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/faq.htm
> Post: mailto:R-390 at mailman.qth.net
> Unsubscribe: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/options/r-390
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/r-390/attachments/20081204/32000d56/attachment.htm