Re: [time-nuts] 5370B OCXO
Hi I guess the real question is what a better OCXO would have actually cost. If the 60111 was a test ten, get ten sort of thing (I'm guessing it was) - was a better part simply a test 10 get 9 issue? The claim was made that short term stability testing could be done directly in the aging racks. It's not real clear what the actual cost of an extended test / sort would have been. Bob On Mar 11, 2010, at 10:43 PM, John Miles wrote: Many if not most 5370-based measurements are based on differential timing between the START and STOP channels, and wouldn't benefit from a better 10 MHz reference. If a customer did need something better, they probably already had a house standard to pipe in the back... and if not, HP would have been able to sell them one. It made more sense to keep the cost down by not including a high-end OCXO that would have gone unappreciated by most users. The 5370's jitter+resolution floor doesn't allow it to reach 1E-11 at t=1s in any event, so the -60111 wouldn't have been the limiting factor in the short term. One valid question, though, is why they bothered to put the nicer 10811-60109 OCXOs in the post-2120 series 5065A models, where its short-term performance is hosed by tying it to the rubidium reference with a ~1 Hz loop. Those 5065As would have been OK with a -60111, at least in the pre-2632 serial #s with the original integrator board. I'd be curious to know if they lowered the loop BW when they respun the integrator PCB. -- john, KE5FX -Original Message- From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com]on Behalf Of Bob Camp Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 7:11 PM To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement Subject: [time-nuts] 5370B OCXO Hi The OCXO in the 5370B is a 10811-60111. The only added spec on it is a 1x10^-11 ADEV spec at 1 second. By modern standards that's not a real tight spec. There are other 10811's with tighter specs on them at 1 second. My guess is that it was not a real tight spec for the 10811 to hit. The short term would appear to contribute to the total error on the counter. Why not put a better oscillator in it? Bob ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] 5370B OCXO
If I understand this thread correctly. I would speculate it was simply a business choice. 1 less part type to manage. On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 7:30 AM, Bob Camp li...@rtty.us wrote: Hi I guess the real question is what a better OCXO would have actually cost. If the 60111 was a test ten, get ten sort of thing (I'm guessing it was) - was a better part simply a test 10 get 9 issue? The claim was made that short term stability testing could be done directly in the aging racks. It's not real clear what the actual cost of an extended test / sort would have been. Bob On Mar 11, 2010, at 10:43 PM, John Miles wrote: Many if not most 5370-based measurements are based on differential timing between the START and STOP channels, and wouldn't benefit from a better 10 MHz reference. If a customer did need something better, they probably already had a house standard to pipe in the back... and if not, HP would have been able to sell them one. It made more sense to keep the cost down by not including a high-end OCXO that would have gone unappreciated by most users. The 5370's jitter+resolution floor doesn't allow it to reach 1E-11 at t=1s in any event, so the -60111 wouldn't have been the limiting factor in the short term. One valid question, though, is why they bothered to put the nicer 10811-60109 OCXOs in the post-2120 series 5065A models, where its short-term performance is hosed by tying it to the rubidium reference with a ~1 Hz loop. Those 5065As would have been OK with a -60111, at least in the pre-2632 serial #s with the original integrator board. I'd be curious to know if they lowered the loop BW when they respun the integrator PCB. -- john, KE5FX -Original Message- From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com]on Behalf Of Bob Camp Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 7:11 PM To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement Subject: [time-nuts] 5370B OCXO Hi The OCXO in the 5370B is a 10811-60111. The only added spec on it is a 1x10^-11 ADEV spec at 1 second. By modern standards that's not a real tight spec. There are other 10811's with tighter specs on them at 1 second. My guess is that it was not a real tight spec for the 10811 to hit. The short term would appear to contribute to the total error on the counter. Why not put a better oscillator in it? Bob ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] 5370B OCXO
Hi Tough to believe that HP worried a lot about SKU inflation back when they did the 5370 :) I'm assuming that the 5370 was a Santa Clara design. That would put the counter designers down the hall from the oscillator factory. Unlikely that there was a communications gap about what could or could not be done. You may well be correct though. Setting up and managing another part is the most likely reason why not to add a couple more tests. Bob -Original Message- From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On Behalf Of paul swed Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 8:51 AM To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement Subject: Re: [time-nuts] 5370B OCXO If I understand this thread correctly. I would speculate it was simply a business choice. 1 less part type to manage. On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 7:30 AM, Bob Camp li...@rtty.us wrote: Hi I guess the real question is what a better OCXO would have actually cost. If the 60111 was a test ten, get ten sort of thing (I'm guessing it was) - was a better part simply a test 10 get 9 issue? The claim was made that short term stability testing could be done directly in the aging racks. It's not real clear what the actual cost of an extended test / sort would have been. Bob On Mar 11, 2010, at 10:43 PM, John Miles wrote: Many if not most 5370-based measurements are based on differential timing between the START and STOP channels, and wouldn't benefit from a better 10 MHz reference. If a customer did need something better, they probably already had a house standard to pipe in the back... and if not, HP would have been able to sell them one. It made more sense to keep the cost down by not including a high-end OCXO that would have gone unappreciated by most users. The 5370's jitter+resolution floor doesn't allow it to reach 1E-11 at t=1s in any event, so the -60111 wouldn't have been the limiting factor in the short term. One valid question, though, is why they bothered to put the nicer 10811-60109 OCXOs in the post-2120 series 5065A models, where its short-term performance is hosed by tying it to the rubidium reference with a ~1 Hz loop. Those 5065As would have been OK with a -60111, at least in the pre-2632 serial #s with the original integrator board. I'd be curious to know if they lowered the loop BW when they respun the integrator PCB. -- john, KE5FX -Original Message- From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com]on Behalf Of Bob Camp Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 7:11 PM To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement Subject: [time-nuts] 5370B OCXO Hi The OCXO in the 5370B is a 10811-60111. The only added spec on it is a 1x10^-11 ADEV spec at 1 second. By modern standards that's not a real tight spec. There are other 10811's with tighter specs on them at 1 second. My guess is that it was not a real tight spec for the 10811 to hit. The short term would appear to contribute to the total error on the counter. Why not put a better oscillator in it? Bob ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] 5370B OCXO
Well at least today its a very key reality. Maybe not in the 80s. But I work for a large company that has 10s of thousands of parts and its a very real drive to remove different parts for more commonality. I would bet indeed business drove the position On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Bob Camp li...@rtty.us wrote: Hi Tough to believe that HP worried a lot about SKU inflation back when they did the 5370 :) I'm assuming that the 5370 was a Santa Clara design. That would put the counter designers down the hall from the oscillator factory. Unlikely that there was a communications gap about what could or could not be done. You may well be correct though. Setting up and managing another part is the most likely reason why not to add a couple more tests. Bob -Original Message- From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On Behalf Of paul swed Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 8:51 AM To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement Subject: Re: [time-nuts] 5370B OCXO If I understand this thread correctly. I would speculate it was simply a business choice. 1 less part type to manage. On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 7:30 AM, Bob Camp li...@rtty.us wrote: Hi I guess the real question is what a better OCXO would have actually cost. If the 60111 was a test ten, get ten sort of thing (I'm guessing it was) - was a better part simply a test 10 get 9 issue? The claim was made that short term stability testing could be done directly in the aging racks. It's not real clear what the actual cost of an extended test / sort would have been. Bob On Mar 11, 2010, at 10:43 PM, John Miles wrote: Many if not most 5370-based measurements are based on differential timing between the START and STOP channels, and wouldn't benefit from a better 10 MHz reference. If a customer did need something better, they probably already had a house standard to pipe in the back... and if not, HP would have been able to sell them one. It made more sense to keep the cost down by not including a high-end OCXO that would have gone unappreciated by most users. The 5370's jitter+resolution floor doesn't allow it to reach 1E-11 at t=1s in any event, so the -60111 wouldn't have been the limiting factor in the short term. One valid question, though, is why they bothered to put the nicer 10811-60109 OCXOs in the post-2120 series 5065A models, where its short-term performance is hosed by tying it to the rubidium reference with a ~1 Hz loop. Those 5065As would have been OK with a -60111, at least in the pre-2632 serial #s with the original integrator board. I'd be curious to know if they lowered the loop BW when they respun the integrator PCB. -- john, KE5FX -Original Message- From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com ]On Behalf Of Bob Camp Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 7:11 PM To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement Subject: [time-nuts] 5370B OCXO Hi The OCXO in the 5370B is a 10811-60111. The only added spec on it is a 1x10^-11 ADEV spec at 1 second. By modern standards that's not a real tight spec. There are other 10811's with tighter specs on them at 1 second. My guess is that it was not a real tight spec for the 10811 to hit. The short term would appear to contribute to the total error on the counter. Why not put a better oscillator in it? Bob ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] 5370B OCXO
Hi I'm looking at things like the plastic shaft pot with switch next to the very similar metal shaft pot with switch on the front panel. Not real likely they were into modern supply practices Bob On Mar 12, 2010, at 3:44 PM, paul swed wrote: Well at least today its a very key reality. Maybe not in the 80s. But I work for a large company that has 10s of thousands of parts and its a very real drive to remove different parts for more commonality. I would bet indeed business drove the position On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Bob Camp li...@rtty.us wrote: Hi Tough to believe that HP worried a lot about SKU inflation back when they did the 5370 :) I'm assuming that the 5370 was a Santa Clara design. That would put the counter designers down the hall from the oscillator factory. Unlikely that there was a communications gap about what could or could not be done. You may well be correct though. Setting up and managing another part is the most likely reason why not to add a couple more tests. Bob -Original Message- From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On Behalf Of paul swed Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 8:51 AM To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement Subject: Re: [time-nuts] 5370B OCXO If I understand this thread correctly. I would speculate it was simply a business choice. 1 less part type to manage. On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 7:30 AM, Bob Camp li...@rtty.us wrote: Hi I guess the real question is what a better OCXO would have actually cost. If the 60111 was a test ten, get ten sort of thing (I'm guessing it was) - was a better part simply a test 10 get 9 issue? The claim was made that short term stability testing could be done directly in the aging racks. It's not real clear what the actual cost of an extended test / sort would have been. Bob On Mar 11, 2010, at 10:43 PM, John Miles wrote: Many if not most 5370-based measurements are based on differential timing between the START and STOP channels, and wouldn't benefit from a better 10 MHz reference. If a customer did need something better, they probably already had a house standard to pipe in the back... and if not, HP would have been able to sell them one. It made more sense to keep the cost down by not including a high-end OCXO that would have gone unappreciated by most users. The 5370's jitter+resolution floor doesn't allow it to reach 1E-11 at t=1s in any event, so the -60111 wouldn't have been the limiting factor in the short term. One valid question, though, is why they bothered to put the nicer 10811-60109 OCXOs in the post-2120 series 5065A models, where its short-term performance is hosed by tying it to the rubidium reference with a ~1 Hz loop. Those 5065As would have been OK with a -60111, at least in the pre-2632 serial #s with the original integrator board. I'd be curious to know if they lowered the loop BW when they respun the integrator PCB. -- john, KE5FX -Original Message- From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com ]On Behalf Of Bob Camp Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 7:11 PM To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement Subject: [time-nuts] 5370B OCXO Hi The OCXO in the 5370B is a 10811-60111. The only added spec on it is a 1x10^-11 ADEV spec at 1 second. By modern standards that's not a real tight spec. There are other 10811's with tighter specs on them at 1 second. My guess is that it was not a real tight spec for the 10811 to hit. The short term would appear to contribute to the total error on the counter. Why not put a better oscillator in it? Bob ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow
Re: [time-nuts] 5370B OCXO
Bob Camp wrote: Hi Tough to believe that HP worried a lot about SKU inflation back when they did the 5370 :) I'm assuming that the 5370 was a Santa Clara design. That would put the counter designers down the hall from the oscillator factory. Unlikely that there was a communications gap about what could or could not be done. You may well be correct though. Setting up and managing another part is the most likely reason why not to add a couple more tests. Bob I was at Santa Clara Division in the 1980's. They worried about both the paper work for extra part numbers and the inventory problem. Especially the latter. There was always some manager whose stock options depended on keeping inventory down (this was during the Japanese just in time fad). Also, if you wanted a part number, you had to obtain one from the official keeper of numbers, and she would usually give you a lecture about the perils of wasting numbers. The counter designers were in a different bldg than the oscillator factory, which were at opposite ends of the 55 acre site. More importantly, they reported to different managers. So you shouldn't assume that communication was great. Rick Karlquist N6RK ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] 5370B OCXO
So little has really changed in 30 years even between completely different companies Dilbert strikes again On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist rich...@karlquist.com wrote: Bob Camp wrote: Hi Tough to believe that HP worried a lot about SKU inflation back when they did the 5370 :) I'm assuming that the 5370 was a Santa Clara design. That would put the counter designers down the hall from the oscillator factory. Unlikely that there was a communications gap about what could or could not be done. You may well be correct though. Setting up and managing another part is the most likely reason why not to add a couple more tests. Bob I was at Santa Clara Division in the 1980's. They worried about both the paper work for extra part numbers and the inventory problem. Especially the latter. There was always some manager whose stock options depended on keeping inventory down (this was during the Japanese just in time fad). Also, if you wanted a part number, you had to obtain one from the official keeper of numbers, and she would usually give you a lecture about the perils of wasting numbers. The counter designers were in a different bldg than the oscillator factory, which were at opposite ends of the 55 acre site. More importantly, they reported to different managers. So you shouldn't assume that communication was great. Rick Karlquist N6RK ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] 5370B OCXO
Many if not most 5370-based measurements are based on differential timing between the START and STOP channels, and wouldn't benefit from a better 10 MHz reference. If a customer did need something better, they probably already had a house standard to pipe in the back... and if not, HP would have been able to sell them one. It made more sense to keep the cost down by not including a high-end OCXO that would have gone unappreciated by most users. The 5370's jitter+resolution floor doesn't allow it to reach 1E-11 at t=1s in any event, so the -60111 wouldn't have been the limiting factor in the short term. One valid question, though, is why they bothered to put the nicer 10811-60109 OCXOs in the post-2120 series 5065A models, where its short-term performance is hosed by tying it to the rubidium reference with a ~1 Hz loop. Those 5065As would have been OK with a -60111, at least in the pre-2632 serial #s with the original integrator board. I'd be curious to know if they lowered the loop BW when they respun the integrator PCB. -- john, KE5FX -Original Message- From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com]on Behalf Of Bob Camp Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 7:11 PM To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement Subject: [time-nuts] 5370B OCXO Hi The OCXO in the 5370B is a 10811-60111. The only added spec on it is a 1x10^-11 ADEV spec at 1 second. By modern standards that's not a real tight spec. There are other 10811's with tighter specs on them at 1 second. My guess is that it was not a real tight spec for the 10811 to hit. The short term would appear to contribute to the total error on the counter. Why not put a better oscillator in it? Bob ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
