On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> Always locate your DUTs physically orthogonal to each other.
Good point. Of course, if you have more than three in an ensemble
then the ensuing hyperdimensional vortex may also cause unexpected
cross-coupling.
Henry
___
will also look better than it really is, and for the same reasons. (Some
people have even reported similar behavior with cesium standards,
although I
don't see how that could happen. There aren't supposed to be any
first-order temperature effects in a CBT, and I'd think that any
lower-order
ef
In message <5389a141.7050...@rubidium.dyndns.org>, Magnus Danielson writes:
>Yeah, there is a whole bunch of environmental effects there. I haven't
>mentioned the Stark effect, which is the electrostatic field effect.
>See, the list grows longer.
>
>The closer you look, the more effects you will
On 05/31/2014 12:24 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message <013401cf7c46$31ac3cc0$9504b640$@miles.io>, "John Miles" writes:
(Some
people have even reported similar behavior with cesium standards, although I
don't see how that could happen. There aren't supposed to be any
first-order tempera
John,
On 05/30/2014 10:31 PM, John Miles wrote:
I usually don't use drift removal as I want to see the effects of drift!
The effects of oscillators locking together are very apparent on both the
phase and AD plots when using a DMTD system. There was no indications of
such locking!
My point wa
> Always locate your DUTs physically orthogonal to each other.
Unless you have 3 clocks. (and everybody knows what happens if you only have
2)
>From an old time-nuts message (Mar, 2009)
> Allied to this discussion is the Loomis effect, discovered by the
> American millionaire who had three S
Hi
The question was “Rb ensemble” …. AFIK you would have to go back quite a way to
find NIST running one….
Bob
On May 30, 2014, at 7:52 PM, Magnus Danielson
wrote:
> Bob,
>
> The long tube Cs standard (NIST 7) is parked in the entrance. Too noisy to
> contribute much value. They have a bun
Bob,
The long tube Cs standard (NIST 7) is parked in the entrance. Too noisy
to contribute much value. They have a bunch of 5071As and hydrogen
masers. They live in individually temperature stabilized compartments.
One typically is selected as the reference and then you measures
differences.
Hi Corby,
On 05/30/2014 07:26 PM, cdel...@juno.com wrote:
Hi,
I usually don't use drift removal as I want to see the effects of drift!
Yes, but the drift effect is not best represented in the ADEV, but phase
or frequency plots however.
The effects of oscillators locking together are very
In message <013401cf7c46$31ac3cc0$9504b640$@miles.io>, "John Miles" writes:
>(Some
>people have even reported similar behavior with cesium standards, although I
>don't see how that could happen. There aren't supposed to be any
>first-order temperature effects in a CBT, and I'd think that any lowe
>
> I usually don't use drift removal as I want to see the effects of drift!
>
> The effects of oscillators locking together are very apparent on both the
> phase and AD plots when using a DMTD system. There was no indications of
> such locking!
>
> My point was that if you are measuring ultrast
Hi
Rubidium ensemble? That would have been quite a while back. They have been
running on long tube Cs standards for quite a while.
Bob
On May 30, 2014, at 2:03 PM, Tim Shoppa wrote:
> What did NIST do with its Rubidium ensemble before they got the cesium
> fountain?
>
> Did they break one
What did NIST do with its Rubidium ensemble before they got the cesium fountain?
Did they break one of the rubidiums off the ensemble, maybe in a
different room with different HVAC, and look at the one vs many?
Would that be useful for OCXO's, measuring one OCXO against an ensemble?
Tim N3QE
On
Hi,
I usually don't use drift removal as I want to see the effects of drift!
The effects of oscillators locking together are very apparent on both the
phase and AD plots when using a DMTD system. There was no indications of
such locking!
My point was that if you are measuring ultrastable Quartz
Hi,
On 05/29/2014 06:47 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:
On 5/29/2014 9:15 AM, cdel...@juno.com wrote:
On these latest oscillators at the longer Tau (>100sec.)
the Quartz versus Quartz data shows much better performance
than the Quartz versus Maser!
What is happening (I think) in this case
Am 29.05.2014 18:15, schrieb cdel...@juno.com:
On these latest oscillators at the longer Tau (>100sec.)
the Quartz versus Quartz data shows much better performance
than the Quartz versus Maser!
Could it be that they try to lock to each other,
given enough time?
regards, Gerhard
What is happe
On 5/29/2014 9:15 AM, cdel...@juno.com wrote:
On these latest oscillators at the longer Tau (>100sec.)
the Quartz versus Quartz data shows much better performance
than the Quartz versus Maser!
What is happening (I think) in this case is that both Quartz units
have exceptionally low and similar
Corby,
On 05/29/2014 06:15 PM, cdel...@juno.com wrote:
Recently I have been testing some Quartz oscillators with
exceptional stability. (low parts in 10-13th)
I've noticed something that jumped out at these performance levels!
Normally I test oscillators on a DMTD system with either
an ultra st
Recently I have been testing some Quartz oscillators with
exceptional stability. (low parts in 10-13th)
I've noticed something that jumped out at these performance levels!
Normally I test oscillators on a DMTD system with either
an ultra stable Quartz or a Hydrogen Maser reference.
On these lates
19 matches
Mail list logo
