Guys, there is only one problem: there is just no way they can claim only 1 second error in a 1000 years unless they also have a GPS receiver for calibration in there, which kind of mutes the point as that has been done using wwvb etc. Let's do the math: 1/ (1000 * 365 * 24 *3600) = 3.171E-011 average error required over 1000 years. The CSAC has a thermal spec of +/-0.5ppb for -20C to +70C, meaning 5.6E-012 per Degree C sensitivity. So the temperature would have to stay stable within a couple degrees C, hardly possible in a wrist watch.
Also, initial CSAC aging is 0.3ppb per month, about 100x worse than they claimed 1000 year per second accuracy. It gets better over time, but still around a ppb per year or so of aging is expected, far off from the 0.032ppb claim. They did a great job integrating that together, and its novel, but the marketing department is off by many orders in magnitude in their accuracy claims. I know CSAC applications that would be very happy to get around 0.1 second error per year consistently without external re-calibration in a stable environment. bye, Said In a message dated 10/1/2013 15:32:27 Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: That's the first time I have seen a practical explanation and working example of a CASC in operation. Can I say "Awesome"? --marki _______________________________________________ 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.
