Hi First option would be to dig into what you already have. There may be a pretty good OCXO in something on your bench.
Any TBolt with a date code past 2001 should have a good OCXO in it. It's plenty good enough for what you are trying to do. Bob Sent from my iPhone On Nov 25, 2010, at 11:48 PM, "W2HX" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, I am sure my questions have been asked before. Unfortunately, the > mailman style archives are so hard to search through. So forgive me my > transgressions. Happy will I be to get a reference to an old thread that > answers my questions. Don't need new answers if old ones suffice. (of course > new answers always welcome!) > > I am looking for a 10 MHz standard for my lab. Accuracy/stability probably > wouldn't make a hill of beans difference in the stuff I do, so my questions > are more academic and it's just nice knowing I have a "really good" > standard. > > 1. So from reading about this topic on KE5FX.com I understand that a better > ocxo makes for better phase noise and near-term quality. I also understand > that some later tbolts had a very good ocxo in them and therefore would not > benefit significantly from an upgrade as ke5fx did using an HP 10811 unit. > I am considering a thunderbolt advertised on ebay by "flyingbest." I will be > traveling to China (mainland, and Hong Kong) on business the last two weeks > in December so I might save some shipping. Here is a photo. Can anyone tell > me if this unit has a "better" 10811-class ocxo or "not so good "ocxo? I > also understand that not all ocxo's are created equal, even if they are the > same model number. > > http://tinyurl.com/2dg2dz3 > > 2. Other GPS DO units seem to differ on the number of satellites they can > receive from simultaneously (channels). What is the net effect of having a > standard that can see 6,8 or 16 birds? Is noise averaged out? Is > stability/phase noise improved? Here is an example of a 16 sat unit. Anyone > have any experience with this unit? Good/bad indifferent? It seems they can > be had for about $200. > > http://tinyurl.com/2ad5kls > > 3. And then there is the venerable HP units like this one. I understand > this uses the 10811 ocxo. Other than the better ocxo, is there anything > inherently superior about these HP units to warrant the additional cost? Or > are we mostly just paying for the HP name? This one is 6 sats. > > http://tinyurl.com/24tkwdv > > Lastly, my use of a 10 MHz standard will be for use in equipment like > microwave counters (EIP 548A), Spectrum analyzers (HP 8658B) VNA's (HP > 3577A, 8753C to 6 GHz), synthesizer (HP 3326A and HP 8662A), premium > receivers (Harris 590H), etc., etc. For these purposes, is a GPS DO advised, > or perhaps a rubidium standard? For example, I don't need this to power a > clock. Just a good, clean, stable signal with low noise, low spurs, etc. > > What's the overall opinion? THANKS !!!! > > (here's to hoping this message looks better than the first two tests I made) > 73 Eugene W2HX > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
