[time-nuts] Re: too many two's

[Demetrios Matsakis via time-nuts]

Also, you can set to local time and await the 22nd second of the 22nd minute of 
the second hour of the second half of the 22nd day of second month of the 22nd 
year of the second millennium of the second era (AD to most, CE to 
archaeologists).

You have to start the millennium at 2000, but that’s not a problem for me.

> On Feb 22, 2022, at 3:07 AM, Kit  wrote:
> 
> Snap !!
> 
> Kitski
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeremy Nichols [mailto:jn6...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, 22 February 2022 1:23 PM
> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement 
> 
> Subject: [time-nuts] Re: too many two's
> 
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 5:24 PM Tom Van Baak  wrote:
> 
>> Get your cameras ready. Coming up in an hour:
>> 
>> 2022-02-22 02:22:22 UTC = MJD 59632.098866 = time_t 1645496542
>> 
>> or second chance, 20 hours later:
>> 
>> 2022-02-22 22:22:22 UTC = MJD 59632.932199 = time_t 1645568542
>> 
>> /tvb
>> ___
>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com -- To unsubscribe 
>> send an email to time-nuts-le...@lists.febo.com To unsubscribe, go to 
>> and follow the instructions there.
>> 
> --
> Jeremy Nichols
> Sent from my iPad 6.
> <2 of 22.jpg>___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com -- To unsubscribe send an 
> email to time-nuts-le...@lists.febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to and follow the instructions there.

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com -- To unsubscribe send an 
email to time-nuts-le...@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to and follow the instructions there.

[time-nuts] Re: Where do people get the time?

[Demetrios Matsakis via time-nuts]

This line in Thomas Erb’s email prompts me to point out that the power 
companies twice tried to eliminate the requirement to keep the Time accurate to 
UTC (2011 and more recently).  According to the FERC’s summary in 2020 they 
denied the most recent petition because two people wrote letters as private 
citizens.  I was one and Jonathan Hardis of NIST was the other. See 
https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20200204-3048
 


I’m not trying to brag - more like I’m worried they try this again in a few 
years, and perhaps no one will notice to speak out.  These things are announced 
by the FERC, and I was on a mailing list with a key-word search, although I let 
it lapse.  Maybe one of you might want to take it up.

Demetrios

P.S.  I am attaching a PTTI paper we wrote, along with Blair Fonville.  The 
paper itself just described the situation, and did not take a stand.  I don’t 
think the USNO monitors the situation any more.

> On Dec 27, 2021, at 7:01 AM, Thomas D. Erb  wrote:
> 
> 
> The power company (still does) keeps  line frequency accurate to a time 
> standard.  Henry Warren got this standardized - I believe Tesla proposed it.
> 
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com -- To unsubscribe send an 
email to time-nuts-le...@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to and follow the instructions there.

[time-nuts] Re: Long term ADEV of 5071

[Demetrios Matsakis via time-nuts]

The BIPM’s new algorithm, implemented around 2014, weights clock by their 
predictability, and also estimates the frequency drift of the masers.  That’s 
why masers have risen to their level of prominence.  But masers do have all 
kinds of variations at some level, which I easily saw when I worked at the USNO 
and had decades of data uncorrupted by time transfer noise.  I was going to 
publish a paper in 2019, but I didn’t because getting approval was impossible.  
It will be interesting to see what you guys can come up with using BIPM data to 
create long time series of frequency variations for cesiums and masers too.   
Be careful because the BIPM data may not tell you when a cesium beam tube was 
changed, or a maser underwent repair.  Or a clock was moved.   So I would treat 
any data gap as a new clock.

Maybe one year ago Microsemi started advertising lower drift in their masers, 
and I suspect that is because they found a way to compensate for the initial 
drift so the user doesn’t see it.  (I have no idea if this is really true.)  
Years ago in a paper I published with Mike Garvey and Paul Koppang I found the 
frequency drift noticeably decreased after three years.   Extending my 
unsupported theory, that might mean new masers pick up a drift over time.   But 
components change, and whatever they do can be modeled.

Another thing about the meaning of weights is that clocks used to be 
characterized through comparison with the EAL timescale, which does not involve 
primaries.   But the new algorithm characterizes them against a TT-guess which 
carries the frequency of the primaries.  So that in effect degrades masers, 
cesiums, and Rb fountains to the status of frequency interpolators between the 
primary standards.   (This is an observation I have made many times and no one 
has contradicted me, so I guess it is obvious.)

> On Mar 28, 2021, at 12:28 PM, Tom Van Baak  wrote:
> 
> The pie charts that Anders created show clocks in the UTC "flywheel". That 
> excludes most research fountains and optical clocks because they can't or 
> aren't run continuously.
> 
> Of the 427 clocks [1] in that data set there are 247 5071A (58%) and 167 
> H-masers (39%) and 6 fountains (<1.4%). So the short answer to your question 
> is that there are only 6 fountains in the chart: 4 Rb fountains at USNO and 2 
> Cs fountains at PTB.
> 
> When playing with charts, it's important not to confuse the number of clocks 
> with the weighting of clocks. And even the weighting is misleading because 
> for practical reasons any clock's weight in UTC is capped at about 1%. All 4 
> of USNO's Rb fountains are at this level, for example. About 60 of the 
> H-masers are also at this level. And none of the 5071A; not even close.
> 
> If you are a 5071A sales person you are likely to emphasize that 60% of the 
> clocks in UTC are 5071A. You are less likely to mention they contribute only 
> 8% of the weight these days.
> 
> If you are in H-maser sales you can claim 40% of the clocks in UTC are masers 
> and also they contribute 88% of the weight.
> 
> It's a good time to be in Microchip clock sales: they now own both the hp 
> 5071A and the Sigma Tau H-maser manufacturing plants. Yes, they still make 
> PIC chips too ;-)
> 
> /tvb
> 
> [1] https://webtai.bipm.org/database/clock.html
> 
> - clock type 35/36 are 5071A
> - clock type 40/41 are H-masers
> - clock type 92/93 are Cs/Rb fountain
> 
> 
> On 3/28/2021 6:15 AM, Bob kb8tq wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>> I would *guess* that fountains would be in there somewhere ( at least in the
>> 2021 version ).
>> 
>> Bob
>> 
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com -- To unsubscribe send an 
> email to time-nuts-le...@lists.febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to and follow the instructions there.
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com -- To unsubscribe send an 
email to time-nuts-le...@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] History of HP Mercury Clocks Digest, Vol 199, Issue 6

[Demetrios Matsakis via time-nuts]

Richard’s description is close.  They were shipped to the USNO in the mid-80s, 
and they didn’t work well.  I was the only physicist there at the time, and was 
asked to take time off from VLBI and Earth rotation to work on it.  That’s how 
I entered the timekeeping world.

My contribution was to discover that frequencies would go bananas in 
coincidence with vacuum and heater events.  That was published as "Eight Years 
of Experience with Mercury Stored-Ion Devices", D.N. Matsakis, A. Kubik, J. De 
Young, R.P. Giffard, and L. Cutler, Proceedings of IEEE Frequency Control 
Symposium, 86 (1995).   I may have a copy of it somewhere.

The shipping disaster was before my time, but I certainly heard about it.  It 
had come upside down. I was told the insurance covered it, but I don’t know  if 
some special branch of HP served as the self-insurer.  I remember Len Cutler 
telling me that they had to pay HP for any HP equipment involved, even though 
everybody worked for HP.

Later, at a pulsar meeting, I heard a talk by Lute Maleki about the JPL device, 
and we ordered one of those from them.   Thereafter JPL made a steady stream of 
improvements, including hiring one of my employees - Eric Burt.   And the rest 
is history.  Or will be once the Deep Space Atomic Clock data are published.

> 
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 10:55:07 -0700
> "Richard (Rick) Karlquist"  wrote:
> 
>> FWIW, about 20 years ago, Len Cutler and Robin Giffard of 5071A fame
>> built several Hg ion clocks to be shipped to some govt customer I
>> don't remember.  One of the clocks was dropped by the shipping company
>> UPS or FedEX) and destroyed.  Only then did Len learn that HP was
>> self insured, probably as part of a package deal to get a low
>> corporate shipping rate.  HP products were packed extremely well, so
>> the only real risk was the unit getting stolen.  I vaguely remember
>> Len saying they were out $10K, which was probably just the cost of
>> parts.  Nevertheless, it didn't seem like building an Hg clock was
>> all that big of a project.  Way simpler than the 5071A.
>> Now a days, the electronics would be considerably easier and cheaper. 
>> The mechanical parts would all be CNC'ed by an online machine shop.
> 
> Magnus just send me out to chase an (unrelated) paper and I stumbled
> over [1] which describes the Hg standard that Cutler & Co built.
> Remembering this discussion I thought it might be interesting to
> some.
> 
> 
>   Attila Kinali
> "Trapped Mercury 199 Ion Frequency Standard", Cutler,
> Giffard,  McGuire, PTTI, 1981
> http://time.kinali.ch/ptti/1981papers/Vol%2013_30.pdf
> 
> -- 
> The driving force behind research is the question: "Why?"
> There are things we don't understand and things we always 
> wonder about. And that's why we do research.
>   -- Kobayashi Makoto
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2021 14:29:35 -0500
> From: Bob kb8tq 
> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
>   
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Used Hydrogen Maser
> Message-ID: 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> Cool !!!
> 
>> On Feb 6, 2021, at 1:05 PM, Attila Kinali  wrote:
>> 
>> Moin,
>> 
>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 10:55:07 -0700
>> "Richard (Rick) Karlquist"  wrote:
>> 
>>> FWIW, about 20 years ago, Len Cutler and Robin Giffard of 5071A fame
>>> built several Hg ion clocks to be shipped to some govt customer I
>>> don't remember.  One of the clocks was dropped by the shipping company
>>> UPS or FedEX) and destroyed.  Only then did Len learn that HP was
>>> self insured, probably as part of a package deal to get a low
>>> corporate shipping rate.  HP products were packed extremely well, so
>>> the only real risk was the unit getting stolen.  I vaguely remember
>>> Len saying they were out $10K, which was probably just the cost of
>>> parts.  Nevertheless, it didn't seem like building an Hg clock was
>>> all that big of a project.  Way simpler than the 5071A.
>>> Now a days, the electronics would be considerably easier and cheaper. 
>>> The mechanical parts would all be CNC'ed by an online machine shop.
>> 
>> Magnus just send me out to chase an (unrelated) paper and I stumbled
>> over [1] which describes the Hg standard that Cutler & Co built.
>> Remembering this discussion I thought it might be interesting to
>> some.
>> 
>> 
>>  Attila Kinali
>> "Trapped Mercury 199 Ion Frequency Standard", Cutler,
>> Giffard,  McGuire, PTTI, 1981
>> http://time.kinali.ch/ptti/1981papers/Vol%2013_30.pdf
>> 
>> -- 
>> The driving force behind research is the question: "Why?"
>> There are things we don't understand and things we always 
>> wonder about. And that's why we do research.
>>  -- Kobayashi Makoto
>> 
>> ___
>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
>> To unsubscribe, go to 
>> http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
>> and follow the i

Re: [time-nuts] time-nuts Digest, Vol 198, Issue 31

[Demetrios Matsakis via time-nuts]

Magnus,

Every time I read one of your posts, I know I will learn something.  Thank you 
so much for correcting the mis-information I had spread!

Demetrios, who isn’t done making mistakes.

> On Jan 23, 2021, at 12:00 PM, time-nuts-requ...@lists.febo.com wrote:
> 
> Send time-nuts mailing list submissions to
>   time-nuts@lists.febo.com
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>   http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>   time-nuts-requ...@lists.febo.com
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>   time-nuts-ow...@lists.febo.com
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of time-nuts digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: irregular data and Stable32 (Magnus Danielson)
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 18:57:00 +0100
> From: Magnus Danielson 
> To: time-nuts@lists.febo.com
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] irregular data and Stable32
> Message-ID: <97c0ea02-bde6-f83c-11a9-c86a7f42b...@rubidium.se>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> 
> Dear Demetrios,
> 
> On 2021-01-20 20:02, Demetrios Matsakis via time-nuts wrote:
>> I think I deleted the duplicate posts relevant to data gaps in deviation 
>> statistics, and apologize if I took anybody?s out.
>> 
>> In my personal software I don?t deal with outliers or data gaps by 
>> interpolating, spline-fitting, or any other fancier things.Instead I 
>> compute the standard statistical measures by simply ignoring terms in the 
>> summation that hit upon a data gap or outlier. 
>> 
>> I don?t think Stable32 does that, so I?d like to pose this challenge to 
>> anyone interested in serving the community:  Assuming IEEE will make the 
>> source code available, can the approach I use be made an option?And yes, 
>> I know that the uncertainties of the deviation points get hard to compute, 
>> but such issues can be warned about in the documentation, if not addressed.
> 
> Stable32 already does this. This is documented in "Handbook of Frequency
> Stability Analysis" by W.J. Riley of Hamilton Technical Services, of
> which essentially the same content is available as NIST SP 1065. In
> addition, you also find it documented in "User manual, Stable32
> Frequency Stability Analysis" of Hamilton Technical Services. A quick
> look into the source code confirms this.
> 
> License-wise, most part of the code was already provided under a
> MIT-style license, it has just not been generally released. We should
> work to make it available, but there is a few loops to jump through to
> ensure it gets done right.
> 
> Cheers,
> Magnus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list
> time-nuts@lists.febo.com
> http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
> 
> 
> --
> 
> End of time-nuts Digest, Vol 198, Issue 31
> **


___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to 
http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] irregular data and Stable32

[Demetrios Matsakis via time-nuts]

I think I deleted the duplicate posts relevant to data gaps in deviation 
statistics, and apologize if I took anybody’s out.

In my personal software I don’t deal with outliers or data gaps by 
interpolating, spline-fitting, or any other fancier things.Instead I 
compute the standard statistical measures by simply ignoring terms in the 
summation that hit upon a data gap or outlier. 

I don’t think Stable32 does that, so I’d like to pose this challenge to anyone 
interested in serving the community:  Assuming IEEE will make the source code 
available, can the approach I use be made an option?And yes, I know that 
the uncertainties of the deviation points get hard to compute, but such issues 
can be warned about in the documentation, if not addressed.

> 
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 08:49:13 -0500
> From: Bob kb8tq 
> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
>   
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Long Wave Radio-Frequency standard testing
> Message-ID: <30728187-dbfe-4110-a595-d1497b5f4...@n1k.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> 
> Hi
> 
> The normal approach to filling a gap is to put in a point that is the average
> of the two adjacent points. The assumption is that this is a ?safe? value that
> will not blow up the result. That?s probably ok if it is done rarely. The 
> risk is
> that you are running a filter process (averaging is a low pass filter). 
> 
> If you pull out a *lot* of outliers and replace them, you are doing a lot of 
> filtering.
> Since you are measuring noise, filtering is very likely to improve the 
> result. 
> The question becomes - how representative is the result after a lot of this 
> or 
> that has been done? 
> 
> Obviously the answer to all this depends on what you are trying to do. If you
> are running a control loop and the output improves, that?s fine. If you are 
> trying to provide an accurate measure of noise ?. maybe not so much :) 
> 
> Bob
> 
>> On Jan 19, 2021, at 2:15 AM, Gilles Clement  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi, 
>> Yes outliers removal creates gap in Stable32.
>> The ? fill ?  function can fills gaps with interpolated values. 
>> It does not change much the graphs, except in the low Tau area (see 
>> attached). 
>> Do you know a discussion of impact of outliers removal ? 
>> Gilles. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Le 18 janv. 2021 ? 22:06, Bob kb8tq  a ?crit :
>>> 
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> As you throw away samples that are far off the mean, you reduce the sample
>>> rate ( or at least create gaps in the record). Dealing with that could be 
>>> difficult.
>>> 
>>> Bob
>>> 
 On Jan 18, 2021, at 1:33 PM, Gilles Clement  wrote:
 
> Hi
> 
> Very cool !!!
> 
> The red trace is obviously the one to focus on. Some sort of digital loop 
> that
> only operates under the ?known good? conditions would seem to make sense. 
> 
> Thanks for sharing 
> 
> Bob
 
 Hi,
 I tried something with the idea to consider night records fluctuations as 
 ? outliers ? as compared to day records. 
 Indeed the 3 days record mean value is flat and the histogram quite 
 gaussian. 
 So I processed the 3 days record (green trace) with Stable32?s ? Check 
 Function ?,
 while removing outliers with decreasing values of the Sigma Factor. The 
 graph below shows the outcome. 
 The graph with Sigma=0.8 (blue trace) connects rather well with the 1Day 
 record (red trace). 
 Would this be a workable approach ? 
 Best, 
 Gilles. 
 
 
 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 13:37:53 -0500
> From: Dave Daniel 
> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
>   
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Long Wave Radio-Frequency standard testing
> Message-ID: <2235bf02-8fff-4000-85a5-119bd358a...@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> 
> Or one can replace those values with zero. That eliminates them; averaging 
> then proceeds without those values altering the most probable correct average.
> 
> DaveD
> 
>> 
>>> 
 Le 18 janv. 2021 ? 22:06, Bob kb8tq  a ?crit :
 
 Hi
 
 As you throw away samples that are far off the mean, you reduce the sample
 rate ( or at least create gaps in the record). Dealing with that could be 
 difficult.
 
 Bob
 
>> On Jan 18, 2021, at 1:33 PM, Gilles Clement  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi
>> 
>> Very cool !!!
>> 
>> The red trace is obviously the one to focus on. Some sort of digital 
>> loop that
>> only operates under the ?known good? conditions would seem to make 
>> sense. 
>> 
>> Thanks for sharing 
>> 
>> Bob
> 
> Hi,
> I tried something with the idea to consider night records fluctuations as 
> ? outliers ? as compared to day records. 
> Indeed the 3 days record mean value is flat and the histogram quite 
> gaussian. 
>

Re: [time-nuts] time-nuts Digest, Vol 188, Issue 32

[Demetrios Matsakis via time-nuts]

 I have cut two quotes from this posting, which I would like to comment on.

One is this:
> 
> 
> Btw.: The GPS system delivers an? in-official uncertainty, because the 
> D.O.D. clock is not participating in the S.I. representation of the UTC.
> 
and  the other is this:

"This is not true. While BIPM only allows a single NMI per country to
contribute to TAI/EAL these days, this wasn't case in the past. And
for historic reasons there are a few countries where two entities contribute
to TAI/EAL. The USNO, master over GPS time, is one of those non-NMI
entities contributing. They also used to be in the past the one single
organization that had the most atomic clocks running, though that's slowly
changing now. They still are one of of the organisations that have the most
stable clock ensambles contributing to EAL, though, and will stay so for the
forseeable future"

***

With regards to the first quote, I have argued in published papers that 
UTC(USNO) via GPS can be used to establish traceability because the difference 
between that and UTC is published by the BIPM with an uncertainty of 10 ns.  
(It used to be in the Circular T itself, but not is in one of the supplementary 
files you can download).   I am told some meteorologists believe this doesn’t 
count, and that the 10 ns is only a nominal value. That is something for the 
auditor to decide, I guess, but either way, you can still use GPS for 
traceability by using NIST web pages, with NIST uncertainties, to correct your 
GPS data to UTC(NIST), and then if you like and are willing to wait a month, 
you can correct for UTC-UTC(NIST) using the Circular T.  (My coauthors were 
from NIST, but this was just a minor point of the paper.)

Responding to the second quote, at least until I retired last year, the BIPM 
will allow any laboratory to contribute to UTC and realize UTC so long as the 
national signatory requests it.  For the USA, that signatory is NIST, and they 
have permitted three other labs to participate - USNO, Naval Research Lab, and 
Applied Physic Lab of Johns Hopkins University.  The name of the game, for 
precise timing labs, is no longer the size of the ensemble.  It is the number 
of atomic fountains you have.  Several labs have them, among the first to get 
them being Germany’s PTB and France’s OP.  If you compare their fountain-based 
realizations of time to the USNO’s, the difference is very small.   When 
optical clocks come on line, the game might change again.  But maybe not, as 
the timescale on which optical standards really gain over atomic fountains, in 
the presence of time transfer noise, might be longer than the timescale with 
which the participating labs steer their realizations to UTC.


___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to 
http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Used Hydrogen Maser, and Mercury Stored-Ion Clocks

[Demetrios Matsakis via time-nuts]

For what it’s worth, the mercury ion clocks were shipped to the US Naval 
Observatory.  HP shortly thereafter did a market survey and concluded there was 
not enough profit in it.   They did allow Len and Robin to give short-answer 
support, and the project fell to me.   I found the clocks were not performing 
well due to sudden vacuum-contamination events.   Len, Robin, and I published 
our data in the proceedings of the 1995 Frequency Control Symposium.  At about 
the same time, JPL came up with a second generation design.   They kept 
improving it, and 20 years later this is now the Deep Space Atomic Clock, which 
was just launched.  See https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/tdm/clock/index.html 
  and 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Atomic_Clock 


As for costs for an unit that is not space-qualified, I would guess you still 
need a lab with PhD’s and skilled technicians because I doubt much of the 
hardware is commercially available.

Demetrios Matsakis, as of this Saturday a USNO retiree, and as of August 1 a 
consultant for Masterclock.

> FWIW, about 20 years ago, Len Cutler and Robin Giffard of 5071A fame
> built several Hg ion clocks to be shipped to some govt customer I
> don't remember.  One of the clocks was dropped by the shipping company
> UPS or FedEX) and destroyed.  Only then did Len learn that HP was
> self insured, probably as part of a package deal to get a low
> corporate shipping rate.  HP products were packed extremely well, so
> the only real risk was the unit getting stolen.  I vaguely remember
> Len saying they were out $10K, which was probably just the cost of
> parts.  Nevertheless, it didn't seem like building an Hg clock was
> all that big of a project.  Way simpler than the 5071A.
> Now a days, the electronics would be considerably easier and cheaper. 
> The mechanical parts would all be CNC'ed by an online machine shop.
> 
> Rick N6RK
> 

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to 
http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
and follow the instructions there.