"I haven't fabricated a good excuse to want my own rubidium standard yet, but I'll keep working on that. :)"
Well, you need another reference that does not use the same principles to check your first reference against. That one worked for me. Now I am working on the next one, because "a man with two clocks..." Didier KO4BB ------------------------ Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless thingy while I do other things... -----Original Message----- From: "Mark J. Blair" <[email protected]> Sender: [email protected] Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:23:59 To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement<[email protected]> Reply-To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] (no subject) On Aug 19, 2010, at 4:54 PM, Bob Camp wrote: > Yup, the original question was "why a TBolt?" I just joined time-nuts today, so please forgive me if I'm beating a dead horse. For me, the answer to "why a TBolt" was "it automatically calibrates itself against somebody else's well-maintained cesium beam oscillator that I didn't have to pay for", along with "(presumably) low phase-noise OCXO output", which interests me for radio-related applications. I might have chosen a different kind of reference for a different application. I haven't fabricated a good excuse to want my own rubidium standard yet, but I'll keep working on that. :) -- Mark J. Blair, NF6X <[email protected]> Web page: http://www.nf6x.net/ GnuPG public key available from my web page. _______________________________________________ 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.
