Thanks Derek,
No, I hadn't been power cycling between the runs
- good point, obviously, I should have.
In terms of the 10 MHz and 1 pps references, in
the configuration I was testing, I don't believe so in that I had the
MIMO cable disconnected. My strategy was to have 2 USRPs with no MIMO -
expecting little synchonisation. Then I was going to add the devices
into the same container and connect the MIMO cable and expected things
to improve and lastly, I was going to hand-code the SBX phase synch code.
In terms of the version of UHD, the fg shows:
<<< Welcome to GNU Radio Companion 3.7.11.1 >>>
Thanks Marcus,
I will implement your way of measuring the
running phase offset and also thanks for correcting my understanding of
O/B GPS .
In terms of getting the devices in the container
to be the best synch they can be, I presume for the device which has the
GPS, for the clock source and time source, I would put O/B GPS for the
device which has it and for the other, I would put MIMO cable for both
but in terms of the 'Sync' field, where the options are PC Clock,
Unknown PPS and Don't Sync, which option should I select?
Thanks again for your help.
Kind Regards,
John
On 11/09/17 09:00, Derek Kozel wrote:
Hi John,
Are you power cycling the USRPs between tests or just rerunning the
GRC flowgraph? Do you have shared 10 MHz and 1 PPS references? What
version of UHD is printed in the output?
Thanks,
Derek
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 1:50 AM, John Shields <sla1nte2...@gmail.com
<mailto:sla1nte2...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Thanks for the feedback but I am not sure that I understand it.
What I was hoping to do was step through the configurations with
increasing levels of synchronisation and expecting to see same.
Marcus' comment is correct and I have not, yet, put in the code
which synchronises SBXs.
I guess my basic point, from looking at previous post from others
Marcus L included, was that UHD would somehow improve the
synchronisation between two USRPs in the same container versus
those two separately.
When I executed the FG shown (separately) with the USRPs
individually and then within a UHD container the results in terms
of phase variation was the same. I had expected that, based on my
understanding, the containerised USRPs would have behaved better.
So, either my FG does not measure what I thought it should or
there is little UHD-related benefit to having USRPs individually
or in the 'domain' as MarcusL has mentioned previously. From my
situation it doesn't hence the first question in the post:
Does my FG not measure what I claim to be wishing
to measure?
Kind Regards,
John
On 11/09/17 01:03, Marcus D. Leech wrote:
On 09/10/2017 08:58 PM, Dan CaJacob wrote:
I could be wrong, but I thought the SBX was one of the few
daughter cards that starts with s known phase offset?
Only if you ask it to do so, and only if it's sharing clock with
its buddies...
On Sun, Sep 10, 2017, 2:49 PM Fulcrum Associates
<sla1nte2...@gmail.com <mailto:sla1nte2...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear All,
I have a couple of USRPs connected, through a
strong
attenuator to a signal generator (NWT4001). While the units
have a MIMO
option, I don't have that cable. (Option A) When I run the
GRC as
attached, I see too good a result to the extent that the
differential
Phi seems to range over +/- 5 degrees.
What I had hoped to prove to myself that two
N200 with SBX
would have a varying offset without MIMO cable, then I would
connect the
MIMO cable and move the USRPs into a multi-unit and enable
GPSD O/B on
the unit which has the feature and MIMO for one without
(Option B) and
that the phase differential would improve noticeably and be
a variable
constant, but it didn't.
If it had, but there still was a fixed phase
offset which
varied each time it was setup (which is what I would expect
under B)
then I would hand-code the SBX stream initialisation code to
remove the
offset.
Does my FG not measure what I claim to be
wishing to
measure?
If it does measure it correctly, why do my
expectations
of options A and B leading to a different (though improved)
situation
not eventuate?
Kind Regards,
John
_______________________________________________
Discuss-gnuradio mailing list
Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org <mailto:Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org>
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
<https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio>
--
Very Respectfully,
Dan CaJacob
_______________________________________________
Discuss-gnuradio mailing list
Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org <mailto:Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org>
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
<https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio>
_______________________________________________
Discuss-gnuradio mailing list
Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org <mailto:Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org>
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
<https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio>
_______________________________________________
Discuss-gnuradio mailing list
Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org <mailto:Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org>
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
<https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio>
_______________________________________________
Discuss-gnuradio mailing list
Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
