Dear Warren,
On 03/10/11 18:58, WarrenS wrote:
Rubidium (Rb) or Caesium (Cs) standard reference oscillator?
What will give the more accurate absolute Frequency source over day to day
averages?
A primary Cs (the types available to time nuts) or a optimally disciplined GPS
Rb Osc?
By definition Cs is the primary time standard,
but there are several things that effect a time-nut's "Primary Cs Standard's"
absolute frequency including how it is built and maintained, if it has the high stability
option and Einstein.
What I'd like to find out is how accurate a GPS Disciplined_Rb_Osc can be made
compared to the typical Cs out there.
If you want "absolute frequency" then a GPSDO rules over any Cs a normal
time-nut can get.
Looking only for stability, then a HP5065A will be more stable than a
HP5061A up to about 100 ks where the HP5061A becomes more stable
according to the ADEV charts that I have found after a quick look on the
net (using "HP5065A ADEV" and "HP5061A ADEV" as search terms).
I'm experimenting to find out how accurate a freq standard can be made using a
LPRO Rb disciplined to a Tbolt.
Using a temperature compensated and tweaked LPRO Rubidium (Rb) oscillator,
I'm getting low e-13 per deg F and day to day freq variations (compared to GPS)
even before being disciplined.
When the LPRO Rb is disciplined to GPS using a well setup Tbolt with an
extended time constant of a few hours,
their phase difference stays with-in a couple of ns RMS, and of course the
difference between them long term is zero.
What I would like to determine is how accurate that really is.
Best way is to measure against a cesium or free-running rubidiums.
Three-cornered hat will help.
Cheers,
Magnus
_______________________________________________
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.
