Hi It was tired old eyes and tiny numbers on the calculator ….That plus to much distraction to double check things.
Bob On Apr 30, 2013, at 9:57 PM, Rex <[email protected]> wrote: > It doesn't affect the general magnitude conclusions by Bruce, but as long as > we are making corrections, my calculator seems to think > 60 * 60 * 24 * 12 = 1036800 seconds in 12 days, not 1024800. That does come > out to 115.7 days for 1 sec error. Maybe the 12-day number was a typo? > > -Rex > > > On 4/30/2013 12:57 PM, Bruce Griffiths wrote: >> 12 days is 1024800 s ie just over 1 million seconds so a frequency offset of >> 0.1ppm results in a time error of ~ 0.1s not 1s. >> 1sec error would occur in just under 116 days, >> >> Bruce >> >> Bob Camp wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> If you take a look down in the fine print on the OCXO spec, the aging rate >>> is 100 ppb / year in the first year. If you are off by 0.1 ppm (100 ppb) >>> your clock will gain a second in less than 12 days. >>> >>> Bob >>> > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
