Interesting, I have heard for years from the senior Time and Freq researchers I work with that 5MHz was a sweet spot. I will ask if there is a reason and proven physics behind it but these are individuals that are well grounded in science. They almost always multiply 5MHz if they needed 10MHz etc. Perhaps I missed something. It wouldn't be the first time I was schooled by the TimeNuts. Best Wishes; Thomas Knox
> From: [email protected] > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 14:39:21 -0400 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [time-nuts] 5MHz x 10MHz > > Hi > > Quartz it's self has no "sweet spot". The only issue is how low you can go in > a specific sized crystal holder before you start to run into trouble. A TO-5 > crystal will have a different minimum frequency than an HC-40. > > Bob > > On Aug 2, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Mike Feher <[email protected]> wrote: > > > It was my understanding that this "sweet spot" was optimum a little above 3 > > MHz, so, 3rd overtone crystals are used to generate a stable, low phase > > noise 10 MHz. Prior to that, 5 MHz was used and before that 1 MHz Regards > > - Mike > > > > Mike B. Feher, EOZ Inc. > > 89 Arnold Blvd. > > Howell, NJ, 07731 > > 732-886-5960 office > > 908-902-3831 cell > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > > Behalf Of Tom Knox > > Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 2:02 PM > > To: Time-Nuts > > Subject: Re: [time-nuts] 5MHz x 10MHz > > > > It is my understanding that Quartz has a sweet spot at 5MHz that makes it > > ideal if the lowest possible phase noise and highest stability are needed. > > > > Thomas Knox > > > > > >> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 19:57:16 +0200 > >> From: [email protected] > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] 5MHz x 10MHz > >> > >> Hi Euclides, > >> > >> On 02/08/13 18:31, Euclides Chuma wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Why any equipments use 5 MHz and others use 10 MHz reference standard? > >> > >> There are some benefits (traditionally) in using 5 MHz over 10 MHz, > >> but > >> 10 MHz have become a common standard. The actual frequency isn't > >> really magic, but 5 MHz and multiples became somewhat standard in the > >> old MIL STD 188 for time-keeping, and it fit fairly well with what was > >> already in use. There are folks here that can correct me on massive > > details. > >> > >> Today 10 MHz is more common because, well, engineers then to be > >> following habits, and 10 MHz "sounds nice". I use 10 MHz mainly > >> because the application requires it, otherwise I use whatever > >> frequency fits my other needs, or what becomes easy to source. > >> > >> PS. Have not seen you post before, so welcome to time-nuts! > >> > >> 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. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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. > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
