Well at least today its a very key reality. Maybe not in the 80s. But I work for a large company that has 10s of thousands of parts and its a very real drive to remove different parts for more commonality. I would bet indeed business drove the position
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Bob Camp <li...@rtty.us> wrote: > Hi > > Tough to believe that HP worried a lot about SKU inflation back when they > did the 5370 :).... > > I'm assuming that the 5370 was a Santa Clara design. That would put the > counter designers down the hall from the oscillator factory. Unlikely that > there was a communications gap about what could or could not be done. > > You may well be correct though. Setting up and managing another part is the > most likely reason why not to add a couple more tests. > > Bob > > -----Original Message----- > From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On > Behalf Of paul swed > Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 8:51 AM > To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement > Subject: Re: [time-nuts] 5370B OCXO > > If I understand this thread correctly. > I would speculate it was simply a business choice. 1 less part type to > manage. > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 7:30 AM, Bob Camp <li...@rtty.us> wrote: > > > Hi > > > > I guess the real question is what a "better" OCXO would have actually > cost. > > > > If the 60111 was a test ten, get ten sort of thing (I'm guessing it was) > - > > was a better part simply a test 10 get 9 issue? > > > > The claim was made that short term stability testing could be done > directly > > in the aging racks. It's not real clear what the actual cost of an > extended > > test / sort would have been. > > > > Bob > > > > > > On Mar 11, 2010, at 10:43 PM, John Miles wrote: > > > > > Many if not most 5370-based measurements are based on differential > timing > > > between the START and STOP channels, and wouldn't benefit from a better > > 10 > > > MHz reference. If a customer did need something better, they probably > > > already had a house standard to pipe in the back... and if not, HP > would > > > have been able to sell them one. It made more sense to keep the cost > > down > > > by not including a high-end OCXO that would have gone unappreciated by > > most > > > users. > > > > > > The 5370's jitter+resolution floor doesn't allow it to reach 1E-11 at > > t=1s > > > in any event, so the -60111 wouldn't have been the limiting factor in > the > > > short term. > > > > > > One valid question, though, is why they bothered to put the nicer > > > 10811-60109 OCXOs in the post-2120 series 5065A models, where its > > short-term > > > performance is hosed by tying it to the rubidium reference with a ~1 Hz > > > loop. Those 5065As would have been OK with a -60111, at least in the > > > pre-2632 serial #s with the original integrator board. I'd be curious > to > > > know if they lowered the loop BW when they respun the integrator PCB. > > > > > > -- john, KE5FX > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com > ]On > > >> Behalf Of Bob Camp > > >> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 7:11 PM > > >> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement > > >> Subject: [time-nuts] 5370B OCXO > > >> > > >> > > >> Hi > > >> > > >> The OCXO in the 5370B is a 10811-60111. The only added spec on it > > >> is a 1x10^-11 ADEV spec at 1 second. By modern standards that's > > >> not a real tight spec. There are other 10811's with tighter specs > > >> on them at 1 second. My guess is that it was not a real tight > > >> spec for the 10811 to hit. > > >> > > >> The short term would appear to contribute to the total error on > > >> the counter. Why not put a better oscillator in it? > > >> > > >> Bob > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > > >> To unsubscribe, go to > > >> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > > >> and follow the instructions there. > > >> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > > > To unsubscribe, go to > > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > > > and follow the instructions there. > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > > To unsubscribe, go to > > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > > and follow the instructions there. > > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. > _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.