Without spilling too many more details, can you say approximately what level of frequency accuracy or stability you need per year? Also, to the nearest decade, what is "relatively cost-conscious design"?
I ask because a CSAC costs on the order of 1500. Note it runs out of the box (you don't need to buy from a third party in a fancy enclosure). If you don't need that level of long-term performance consider a high-performance TCXO. If power is a much greater limiting factor than budget use both; fire up the CSAC once a day (or week, etc.) for a few minutes to correct the VCTCXO. That way you get both low power and high accuracy. /tvb ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gregory Muir" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 5:15 PM Subject: [time-nuts] Neat little cesium box > Tom, > > Thank you for your concern. I unfortunately cannot disclose many details > about the proposed project only to say that the application transcends much > of the typical "Time-Nuts" areas of normality. At present we are evaluating > typical frequency references to see if they will fit into this project. > > What I can say is that phase noise is of little interest but log-term > frequency drift is. The completed unit will unfortunately not see GPS > signals during most of its lifetime, be constrained to a weight not exceeding > 20 lbs, be considered non-recoverable (disposable) due to areas of deployment > thereby require a relatively cost-conscious design, have no access to a > source of power let alone any natural power-producing resources and have an > expected lifetime of 10-12 years without maintenance access. > > Most of the problems have been solved including the power source. This is > not your typical kitchen table project. And, as new frequency references are > developed and the design feasibility phase is still open, small and minimal > power-consuming products such as the Novus unit will garner our attention. > > Thanks for your offer, > > Greg > > On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:59:01 -0700, "Tom Van Baak" wrote: > >>Greg, >> >>That URL confuses "atom" with performance. Calling something "cesium" in no >>way conveys the actual accuracy or stability of the device actually being >>offered for sale. A CSAC is not a 5071A is not a cesium fountain is not a >>>GPSDO. That's why we use statistics (ADEV) instead of the periodic table. >> >>In recent years small, compact, low-voltage, low-power TCXO, OCXO, rubidium, >>and cesium oscillators allow companies sell products called "quartz", >>"rubidium", and "cesium" with no regard to actual time or frequency or >noise >>specifications and performance plots. Even snake oil has an ADEV. >> >>Contact me *off-line* about your client and your actual requirements. >> >>/tvb > _______________________________________________ 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.
