> Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 20:40:24 -0700 (PDT) > From: "Rick Karlquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Double ovened 10811-60158 on ebay > To: "Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement" > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 > > Ed Palmer wrote: > >> Bill, >> >> I picked up a couple of these 'naked' oscillators. I was surprised to >> hear that you stripped yours down. I'm planning to build it back up to >> its former glory with a controller for the outer oven and a new cover of >> some sort. Is there any reason not to do that? >> > > The possible reason is that the oven thermal gain isn't all that > great (AFAIK), so you go to fair amount of trouble for marginal > benefits. You will probably have to use a very long time constant > which will sort of rule out a simple analog integrator, forcing > a PID digital controller. If you're good with a PIC, it might not > be too hard. I'm an analog guy; I don't speak PIC. :-) > > Rick Karlquist N6RK > I wasn't planning on doing anything fancy - just copy the original controller since the schematic is available. And it's all analog. :-)
But now that I look around, I can't find anything to tell me that the double-oven version performs any better than the regular version. The 10811 specification document says that the thermal performance of the -60158 version is the same as the regular D/E version. I'm guessing that's when it's _not_ in a double oven configuration. The only differences in specs are things that the double oven wouldn't affect (e.g. aging). It started out as such a nice little project.......... Ed _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
