Should I assume from these posts that there are no portable low power
commercial products better than a thermocompensated quartz watch
working at ~10^-7?
Ronald
On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 1:09 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Send time-nuts mailing list submissions to
> [email protected]
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> [email protected]
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> [email protected]
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of time-nuts digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: chip scale atomic clock (Robert Lutwak)
> 2. Re: Cheap Rubidium (Bob Camp)
> 3. Re: chip scale atomic clock (paul swed)
> 4. Re: chip scale atomic clock (Bob Camp)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 12:30:08 -0500
> From: Robert Lutwak <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] chip scale atomic clock
> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
> <[email protected]>
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> Notwithstanding the performance of one physics package, I think it's
> safe to say that no-one is holding their breath waiting for a 1e-11 CSAC.
>
> That figure (5B) shows the Allan deviation of 10 physics packages
> (measured with optimal laboratory electronics) and you are correct
> that the best of the bunch is down around 2-3e-11 at 1-second. At
> that time, with low-power CSAC electronics, the performance of that
> same physics package was up around 1e-10 and most were in the 2-3e-10
> range (see Figure 6), which would have led to a spec somewhere north
> of there, perhaps 3-4e-10.
>
> For your amusement, I just added a more recent paper (from the 2009
> FCS/EFTF) to my WWW site. Figure 3 in that paper shows some more
> recent results with (newer, better, and lower power) electronics but
> similar physics package architecture. These days, typical CSAC
> instability is in the range of 8-10e-11 @ 1second, which might lead
> to a spec in the 1-3e-10 range.
>
> -RL
>
>
> At 11:41 AM 12/26/2009, you wrote:
>>Hi
>>
>>I *knew* I'd seen a chart somewhere that was getting close to
>>1x10-11 at 1 second for the best of the group.
>>
>>It's figure B on page 7 of your FSM 2008 paper.
>>
>>Bob
>>
>>
>>On Dec 26, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Robert Lutwak wrote:
>>
>> > I pay pretty close attention to what people in this field are
>> saying, and I've never heard anyone say "we'll get to 1e-11 short
>> term stability at 1 second real soon now."
>> >
>> > 1e-11 at 1 second is the XPRO spec (and 2X better than LPRO or
>> PRS10). There are good (physics) reasons why those units all draw
>> 100X more power than a CSAC.
>> >
>> > CSAC is intended for portable battery-powered operation. Surely
>> your basement has the space and wallplug power to support an LPRO.
>> (p.s. don't cool the damn thing, heat it).
>> >
>> > The cats were much happier during the CsIII development (see
>> http://home.comcast.net/~rlutwak). It was bigger and warmer. Any
>> Cat-Nuts out there who can help me find one with significantly lower SWAP?
>> >
>> > -RL
>> >
>> > At 10:08 AM 12/26/2009, you wrote:
>> >> Hi
>> >>
>> >> 1x10-11 at 1 second, going down by tau^0.5.
>> >>
>> >> That makes them candidates for the basement system ....
>> >>
>> >> Bob
>> >>
>> >> On Dec 26, 2009, at 9:33 AM, Robert Lutwak wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > How "good" do you want?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > At 09:13 AM 12/26/2009, you wrote:
>> >> >> Hi
>> >> >>
>> >> >> They still seem to be at the stage of "we'll get to good
>> short term stability at 1 second real soon now".
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Bob
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Dec 26, 2009, at 8:23 AM, Ronald Held wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > I read about this a while ago. Has anyone seen anything recent about
>> >> >> > it, notably desktop or even portable units?
>> >> >> > Ronald
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> >> > 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.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> 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.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > -RL
>> >> >
>> >> > -----------------------
>> >> > Robert Lutwak
>> >> > Symmetricom - Technology Realization Center
>> >> >
>> <mhtml:mid://00000000/mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
>> (Business)
>> >> >
>> <mhtml:mid://00000000/mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
>> (Personal)
>> >> > (978) 232-1461 (Desk)
>> >> > (339) 927-7896 (Mobile)
>> >> > (978) 927-4099 (Facsimile)
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > -RL
>> >> >
>> >> > -----------------------
>> >> > Robert Lutwak
>> >> > Symmetricom - Technology Realization Center
>> >> >
>> <mhtml:mid://00000000/mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
>> (Business)
>> >> >
>> <mhtml:mid://00000000/mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
>> (Personal)
>> >> > (978) 232-1461 (Desk)
>> >> > (339) 927-7896 (Mobile)
>> >> > (978) 927-4099 (Facsimile)
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > 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.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -RL
>> >
>> > -----------------------
>> > Robert Lutwak
>> > Symmetricom - Technology Realization Center
>> >
>> <mhtml:mid://00000000/mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
>> (Business)
>> >
>> <mhtml:mid://00000000/mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
>> (Personal)
>> > (978) 232-1461 (Desk)
>> > (339) 927-7896 (Mobile)
>> > (978) 927-4099 (Facsimile)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -RL
>> >
>> > -----------------------
>> > Robert Lutwak
>> > Symmetricom - Technology Realization Center
>> >
>> <mhtml:mid://00000000/mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
>> (Business)
>> >
>> <mhtml:mid://00000000/mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
>> (Personal)
>> > (978) 232-1461 (Desk)
>> > (339) 927-7896 (Mobile)
>> > (978) 927-4099 (Facsimile)
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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.
>> >
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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.
>
>
>
> -RL
>
> -----------------------
> Robert Lutwak
> Symmetricom - Technology Realization Center
> <mhtml:mid://00000000/mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
> (Business)
> <mhtml:mid://00000000/mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
> (Personal)
> (978) 232-1461 (Desk)
> (339) 927-7896 (Mobile)
> (978) 927-4099 (Facsimile)
>
>
>
> -RL
>
> -----------------------
> Robert Lutwak
> Symmetricom - Technology Realization Center
> <mhtml:mid://00000000/mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
> (Business)
> <mhtml:mid://00000000/mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
> (Personal)
> (978) 232-1461 (Desk)
> (339) 927-7896 (Mobile)
> (978) 927-4099 (Facsimile)
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 12:37:06 -0500
> From: Bob Camp <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Cheap Rubidium
> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
> <[email protected]>
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Hi
>
> Unfortunately, I can see the main water tower from my front yard. We don't
> spend much money heating shower water in the summer.....
>
> Bob
>
>
> On Dec 26, 2009, at 12:03 PM, J. Forster wrote:
>
>> In most single family houses, the water supply is pretty constant
>> temperature because the pipes typically run well underground for miles and
>> miles. Seasonal temperature variations don't usually go down more than a
>> few feet. The pipes are often deeper.
>>
>> -John
>>
>> =============
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> In most rural or semi-rural areas over here in Canterbury, New
>>> Zealand, water is provided by a well on the domicile section. Wells
>>> are drilled into the natural aquifer formed by volcanic ash which we
>>> live on so it is relatively easy to create a bore hole and take
>>> advantage of the naturally filtered water from quite a distance below
>>> the surface. I wouldn't mind betting that this water comes out of the
>>> ground at a very constant temperature season by season and the amount
>>> needed to flow over the rb heatsink to hold it steady would not be so
>>> great as to be able to be wasted back into the drains.
>>>
>>> Ths would save all the messing about pumping water down into a bore
>>> and pumping it back up again. Although I appreciate that not everone
>>> is in the position to do this but some may already have a water supply
>>> like this, even for garden irrigation. When I lived out in the sticks
>>> I had reticulated water on the drip for the house uses but my own bore
>>> for garden irrigation.
>>>
>>> 73
>>> Steve
>>>
>>> 2009/12/25 Bob Camp <[email protected]>:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> Actually burying a recirculating loop might work pretty well. The gotcha
>>>> is that going much deeper than 18" would require significant amounts of
>>>> blasting powder. I suspect the neighbors *might* object ....
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 24, 2009, at 3:32 PM, Don Latham wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Actually, couldn't you just squeeze your fish before you eat it? Should
>>>>> have a lot of mercury in notime, according to the scaremongers.
>>>>> Also, consider a heatsink buried about 10-15 feet deep. The temperature
>>>>> at
>>>>> that depth in the ground does not vary very much at all. The trick to
>>>>> all
>>>>> of this is to have a heatsink/source at a constant temp somewhere...
>>>>> Merry Christams to all the nuts!
>>>>> Don
>>>>>
>>>>> Bruce Griffiths
>>>>>> Magnus Danielson wrote:
>>>>>>> Bruce,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bruce Griffiths wrote:
>>>>>>>> At your location, at present, it wouldnt be a significant problem as
>>>>>>>> long as the basement was unheated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Depends. But having 3 dm snow on the ground helps to keep the ground
>>>>>>> around the house warmer, as it will insulate against the cold of the
>>>>>>> open sky. -12.8 C is the lowest so far. Since winter is reoccuring,
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>> build the houses accordingly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also good ventilation would help, together with a thin layer of oil
>>>>>>>> on top of the mercury.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mmm. Yes, didn't think about covering the baths with fluids.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The biggest obstacle would be the cost of the Mercury.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually, it could be an obstcle just obtaining in those amounts it
>>>>>>> here within EC, so it would involve some form of approval of some
>>>>>>> form
>>>>>>> of excempt since it is mercury is a ROS element.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Magnus
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Guidline price is around $US600/flask (1 flask = 34.5kg).
>>>>>> Thus cost for 145 ton would be around $US2.5million.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Canadians have a liquid mercury mirror telescope about 6m in
>>>>>> diameter.
>>>>>> Whilst this doesn't use 145 tons of mercury the surface area would be
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the same order.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bruce
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dr. Don Latham AJ7LL
>>>>> Six Mile Systems LLP
>>>>> 17850 Six Mile Road
>>>>> POB 134
>>>>> Huson, MT, 59846
>>>>> VOX 406-626-4304
>>>>> www.lightningforensics.com
>>>>> www.sixmilesystems.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Steve Rooke - ZL3TUV & G8KVD
>>> A man with one clock knows what time it is;
>>> A man with two clocks is never quite sure.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:01:08 -0500
> From: paul swed <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] chip scale atomic clock
> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
> <[email protected]>
> Message-ID:
> <[email protected]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> So when do we see them on ebay?? ;-) Like the low power aspect. instead of
> 20-40 watts or more
>
> On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Bob Camp <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> Not ment as a knock, just a comment that a lot of work is still being done
>> on getting short term stability closer to a 100~1000X bigger device.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>
>> On Dec 26, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Robert Lutwak wrote:
>>
>> > I pay pretty close attention to what people in this field are saying, and
>> I've never heard anyone say "we'll get to 1e-11 short term stability at 1
>> second real soon now."
>> >
>> > 1e-11 at 1 second is the XPRO spec (and 2X better than LPRO or PRS10).
>> There are good (physics) reasons why those units all draw 100X more power
>> than a CSAC.
>> >
>> > CSAC is intended for portable battery-powered operation. Surely your
>> basement has the space and wallplug power to support an LPRO. (p.s. don't
>> cool the damn thing, heat it).
>> >
>> > The cats were much happier during the CsIII development (see
>> http://home.comcast.net/~rlutwak <http://home.comcast.net/%7Erlutwak>). It
>> was bigger and warmer. Any Cat-Nuts out there who can help me find one with
>> significantly lower SWAP?
>> >
>> > -RL
>> >
>> > At 10:08 AM 12/26/2009, you wrote:
>> >> Hi
>> >>
>> >> 1x10-11 at 1 second, going down by tau^0.5.
>> >>
>> >> That makes them candidates for the basement system ....
>> >>
>> >> Bob
>> >>
>> >> On Dec 26, 2009, at 9:33 AM, Robert Lutwak wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > How "good" do you want?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > At 09:13 AM 12/26/2009, you wrote:
>> >> >> Hi
>> >> >>
>> >> >> They still seem to be at the stage of "we'll get to good short term
>> stability at 1 second real soon now".
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Bob
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Dec 26, 2009, at 8:23 AM, Ronald Held wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > I read about this a while ago. Has anyone seen anything recent
>> about
>> >> >> > it, notably desktop or even portable units?
>> >> >> > Ronald
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> >> > 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.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> 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.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > -RL
>> >> >
>> >> > -----------------------
>> >> > Robert Lutwak
>> >> > Symmetricom - Technology Realization Center
>> >> > <mhtml:mid://00000000/mailto:[email protected]
>> >[email protected] (Business)
>> >> > <mhtml:mid://00000000/mailto:[email protected]>[email protected](Personal)
>> >> > (978) 232-1461 (Desk)
>> >> > (339) 927-7896 (Mobile)
>> >> > (978) 927-4099 (Facsimile)
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > -RL
>> >> >
>> >> > -----------------------
>> >> > Robert Lutwak
>> >> > Symmetricom - Technology Realization Center
>> >> > <mhtml:mid://00000000/mailto:[email protected]
>> >[email protected] (Business)
>> >> > <mhtml:mid://00000000/mailto:[email protected]>[email protected](Personal)
>> >> > (978) 232-1461 (Desk)
>> >> > (339) 927-7896 (Mobile)
>> >> > (978) 927-4099 (Facsimile)
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > 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.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -RL
>> >
>> > -----------------------
>> > Robert Lutwak
>> > Symmetricom - Technology Realization Center
>> > <mhtml:mid://00000000/mailto:[email protected]
>> >[email protected] (Business)
>> > <mhtml:mid://00000000/mailto:[email protected]>[email protected](Personal)
>> > (978) 232-1461 (Desk)
>> > (339) 927-7896 (Mobile)
>> > (978) 927-4099 (Facsimile)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -RL
>> >
>> > -----------------------
>> > Robert Lutwak
>> > Symmetricom - Technology Realization Center
>> > <mhtml:mid://00000000/mailto:[email protected]
>> >[email protected] (Business)
>> > <mhtml:mid://00000000/mailto:[email protected]>[email protected](Personal)
>> > (978) 232-1461 (Desk)
>> > (339) 927-7896 (Mobile)
>> > (978) 927-4099 (Facsimile)
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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.
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:09:06 -0500
> From: Bob Camp <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] chip scale atomic clock
> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
> <[email protected]>
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Hi
>
> Thanks, that's one I hadn't seen yet. I did not get Besancon this year.
>
> I guess my main point is that *if* the physics package is capable of
> ~2x10^-11 with good electronics, then what ever you get past that is simply
> mission related. A different system requirement could take the performance
> closer to that "ideal".
>
> Good to see that the RbXO is coming back to life (again). It would have been
> nice to get it into production back at EG&G.
>
> Bob
>
> On Dec 26, 2009, at 12:30 PM, Robert Lutwak wrote:
>
>> Notwithstanding the performance of one physics package, I think it's safe to
>> say that no-one is holding their breath waiting for a 1e-11 CSAC.
>>
>> That figure (5B) shows the Allan deviation of 10 physics packages (measured
>> with optimal laboratory electronics) and you are correct that the best of
>> the bunch is down around 2-3e-11 at 1-second. At that time, with low-power
>> CSAC electronics, the performance of that same physics package was up around
>> 1e-10 and most were in the 2-3e-10 range (see Figure 6), which would have
>> led to a spec somewhere north of there, perhaps 3-4e-10.
>>
>> For your amusement, I just added a more recent paper (from the 2009
>> FCS/EFTF) to my WWW site. Figure 3 in that paper shows some more recent
>> results with (newer, better, and lower power) electronics but similar
>> physics package architecture. These days, typical CSAC instability is in the
>> range of 8-10e-11 @ 1second, which might lead to a spec in the 1-3e-10 range.
>>
>> -RL
>>
>>
>> At 11:41 AM 12/26/2009, you wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I *knew* I'd seen a chart somewhere that was getting close to 1x10-11 at 1
>>> second for the best of the group.
>>>
>>> It's figure B on page 7 of your FSM 2008 paper.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 26, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Robert Lutwak wrote:
>>>
>>> > I pay pretty close attention to what people in this field are saying, and
>>> > I've never heard anyone say "we'll get to 1e-11 short term stability at 1
>>> > second real soon now."
>>> >
>>> > 1e-11 at 1 second is the XPRO spec (and 2X better than LPRO or PRS10).
>>> > There are good (physics) reasons why those units all draw 100X more power
>>> > than a CSAC.
>>> >
>>> > CSAC is intended for portable battery-powered operation. Surely your
>>> > basement has the space and wallplug power to support an LPRO. (p.s. don't
>>> > cool the damn thing, heat it).
>>> >
>>> > The cats were much happier during the CsIII development (see
>>> > http://home.comcast.net/~rlutwak). It was bigger and warmer. Any Cat-Nuts
>>> > out there who can help me find one with significantly lower SWAP?
>>> >
>>> > -RL
>>> >
>>> > At 10:08 AM 12/26/2009, you wrote:
>>> >> Hi
>>> >>
>>> >> 1x10-11 at 1 second, going down by tau^0.5.
>>> >>
>>> >> That makes them candidates for the basement system ....
>>> >>
>>> >> Bob
>>> >>
>>> >> On Dec 26, 2009, at 9:33 AM, Robert Lutwak wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > How "good" do you want?
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > At 09:13 AM 12/26/2009, you wrote:
>>> >> >> Hi
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> They still seem to be at the stage of "we'll get to good short term
>>> >> >> stability at 1 second real soon now".
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Bob
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Dec 26, 2009, at 8:23 AM, Ronald Held wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> > I read about this a while ago. Has anyone seen anything recent about
>>> >> >> > it, notably desktop or even portable units?
>>> >> >> > Ronald
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > _______________________________________________
>>> >> >> > 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.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> >> 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.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > -RL
>>> >> >
>>> >> > -----------------------
>>> >> > Robert Lutwak
>>> >> > Symmetricom - Technology Realization Center
>>> >> > <mhtml:mid://00000000/mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
>>> >> > (Business)
>>> >> > <mhtml:mid://00000000/mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
>>> >> > (Personal)
>>> >> > (978) 232-1461 (Desk)
>>> >> > (339) 927-7896 (Mobile)
>>> >> > (978) 927-4099 (Facsimile)
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > -RL
>>> >> >
>>> >> > -----------------------
>>> >> > Robert Lutwak
>>> >> > Symmetricom - Technology Realization Center
>>> >> > <mhtml:mid://00000000/mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
>>> >> > (Business)
>>> >> > <mhtml:mid://00000000/mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
>>> >> > (Personal)
>>> >> > (978) 232-1461 (Desk)
>>> >> > (339) 927-7896 (Mobile)
>>> >> > (978) 927-4099 (Facsimile)
>>> >> > _______________________________________________
>>> >> > 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.
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> 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.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > -RL
>>> >
>>> > -----------------------
>>> > Robert Lutwak
>>> > Symmetricom - Technology Realization Center
>>> > <mhtml:mid://00000000/mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
>>> > (Business)
>>> > <mhtml:mid://00000000/mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
>>> > (Personal)
>>> > (978) 232-1461 (Desk)
>>> > (339) 927-7896 (Mobile)
>>> > (978) 927-4099 (Facsimile)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > -RL
>>> >
>>> > -----------------------
>>> > Robert Lutwak
>>> > Symmetricom - Technology Realization Center
>>> > <mhtml:mid://00000000/mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
>>> > (Business)
>>> > <mhtml:mid://00000000/mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
>>> > (Personal)
>>> > (978) 232-1461 (Desk)
>>> > (339) 927-7896 (Mobile)
>>> > (978) 927-4099 (Facsimile)
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > 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.
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> -RL
>>
>> -----------------------
>> Robert Lutwak
>> Symmetricom - Technology Realization Center
>> <mhtml:mid://00000000/mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
>> (Business)
>> <mhtml:mid://00000000/mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
>> (Personal)
>> (978) 232-1461 (Desk)
>> (339) 927-7896 (Mobile)
>> (978) 927-4099 (Facsimile)
>>
>>
>>
>> -RL
>>
>> -----------------------
>> Robert Lutwak
>> Symmetricom - Technology Realization Center
>> <mhtml:mid://00000000/mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
>> (Business)
>> <mhtml:mid://00000000/mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
>> (Personal)
>> (978) 232-1461 (Desk)
>> (339) 927-7896 (Mobile)
>> (978) 927-4099 (Facsimile)
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> time-nuts mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>
> End of time-nuts Digest, Vol 65, Issue 103
> ******************************************
>
_______________________________________________
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.
