Ulrich Windl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Max Power" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Use of "Atomic Clock" Nomenclature > For further confusion, in Germany we have two words, like nuclear and atom: > Clocks are usually "atomic clocks", while power plants are either "atomic > power plant" (Atomkraftwerk), or "nuclear power plant" (Kernkraftwerk), > depending on which political party is currently active (I guess). > Strictly speaking, there's no clock without atoms, so just like an "iron > clock" or "plastic clock", the are all "atomic clocks", right? ;-) > What makes me nervous on the subject is that some vendors leave the > imagination that their receiver has the same accuracy that the remote > reference clock (less than a second in some hundred years). Most people do not > know that stock DCF77 receivers just turn on the receiver once to a few times > per day to save battery power. This makes the issue worse. > Regards, > Ulrich > P.S. Now try to take your declared "nuclear clock" into a plane to the USA and > see what will happen ;-) It seems that Cs clocks are now forbidden to fly because cs133 is highly flamable (or even does it burn spontaneously ?) in the ambiant air. Before that, Cs clocks traveling for calibration purposes were conservatively declared as "electronic clocks". -- francois meyer http://dulle.free.fr/alidade/galerie.php?maxim=12 _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
