[R-390] WWV Time

[george stringe]

True for sure, but then there is the thing about where the decimal point 
goes.....

george

w9ya wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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 <mailto:R-390 at mailman.qth.net>
>     Unsubscribe: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/options/r-390
>
>