Yes I agree a newer thunderbolt would surely suffice for me and probably also the ocxo in my 8662A synth
But I am still academically curious about the impact of more channels of satellites? What is the value of these extra sats? Thanks! On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 13:01:12 -0500, wrote: > 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 wil> > 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). Wha> > 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. -- 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.
