Hi
Once you get up to an OCXO sized package, you get quite a bit of volume.
On an older TCXO design it’s sort of the same thing. The CSAC falls into
a size range that is kind of on the borderline. I have seen packages that
size vented in the past.
Bob
> On Dec 9, 2018, at 10:39 AM, jimlux
On 12/9/18 7:08 AM, Bob kb8tq wrote:
Hi
On a normal OCXO or TCXO design you would put the product in a
package with a hermetic outer wall to keep out crud and moisture.
Per the papers cited you would put a small vent hole in a “space grade”
product. Every time I see an eBay listing with a nutty
Hi
On a normal OCXO or TCXO design you would put the product in a
package with a hermetic outer wall to keep out crud and moisture.
Per the papers cited you would put a small vent hole in a “space grade”
product. Every time I see an eBay listing with a nutty price on a “space
OCXO” I wonder if
On 12/8/18 4:52 PM, Bob kb8tq wrote:
Hi
What, no 0.046 +/- -.002” vent hole?
Not on the physics package of the CSAC. As I understand it, the vacuum
around the physics package is more for thermal isolation than anything
else. You can tell that the vacuum is fading because the heater
Hi
What, no 0.046 +/- -.002” vent hole?
That used to be a requirement on this sort of thing.
Bob
> On Dec 8, 2018, at 6:35 PM, jimlux wrote:
>
> On 12/8/18 11:30 AM, Bob kb8tq wrote:
>> Hi
>> You might be surprised by how well the CSAC does in orbit. There have been a
>> lot of cases
>>
On 12/8/18 11:30 AM, Bob kb8tq wrote:
Hi
You might be surprised by how well the CSAC does in orbit. There have been a
lot of cases
over the years where a device has done much better once it is away from “poking
fingers”
like pressure and other semi-random stuff ….
Bob
Oh, I'm pretty sure
Hi
You might be surprised by how well the CSAC does in orbit. There have been a
lot of cases
over the years where a device has done much better once it is away from “poking
fingers”
like pressure and other semi-random stuff ….
Bob
> On Dec 8, 2018, at 1:49 PM, jimlux wrote:
>
> On 12/8/18
On 12/8/18 10:58 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message <65c07521-6efc-f139-0722-a28b40330...@earthlink.net>, jimlux writes:
There are folks developing and flying a Deep Space Atomic Clock (DSAC),
[..]
It will be in LEO, but maybe you can see the variation from the Moon and Sun?
In
In message <65c07521-6efc-f139-0722-a28b40330...@earthlink.net>, jimlux writes:
>There are folks developing and flying a Deep Space Atomic Clock (DSAC),
>[..]
>It will be in LEO, but maybe you can see the variation from the Moon and Sun?
In LEO for testing ? Otherwise the name seems a
On 12/8/18 10:12 AM, Peter Monta wrote:
If a little eccentricity makes for a good test of relativity, wouldn't a
lot of eccentricity be even better? :-)
Does anyone know what clock facilities are on the Parker solar probe?
Atomic clock? And a drag-free mode would have been great too, but I
If a little eccentricity makes for a good test of relativity, wouldn't a
lot of eccentricity be even better? :-)
Does anyone know what clock facilities are on the Parker solar probe?
Atomic clock? And a drag-free mode would have been great too, but I doubt
that was included.
Cheers,
Peter
On 12/7/18 9:38 AM, Mark Sims wrote:
Looks like somebody (sort of) duplicated Tom's experiment (and stole the name):
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/12/07/galileos_magnifico_measurement_1976_redshift_test_updated/
And there's a mention of Tom's experiment in the comments..
So Time-nuts
Looks like somebody (sort of) duplicated Tom's experiment (and stole the name):
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/12/07/galileos_magnifico_measurement_1976_redshift_test_updated/
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe, go
13 matches
Mail list logo
