Hi The original RbXO was not a whole lot bigger than the Rb. The CSAC is a *lot* smaller than the Rb’s of that era. The TCXO’s and OCXO’s today are a lot smaller as well. I’d bet you could do it in < 2X the volume of the CSAC with a pretty good OCXO and < 1.2X the volume with a precision TCXO.
Bob > On Jan 23, 2018, at 3:36 PM, Ronald Held <[email protected]> wrote: > > Bob: > What is you idea of portable in terms of size and mass for RbXO? > Ronald > Jim > I suppose I am try to do "better' and my TCXO watches which at best > run around a second/year. > > > OCXO and TCXO are both available smaller than the CSAC (particularly > tcxo). I'm using a vectron EX-421 OCXO and it's about 1cm on a side, > the OX205 is about 1" square and maybe 0.60" tall. > > TCXOs are available in "cellphone" form factors (e.g. tiny SMT packages) > > > > Bob: > Long term, maybe a year, sounds like a reasonable goal. Maybe I am > just chasing the next zero, if I have the metaphor correct? > Ronald > > > > Hi > > I’m guessing there was a question to me that somehow got lost in the world of > ones and zeros …. > > My comment was in terms of temperature stability. The CSAC has a temp > stability > specification of +/-4x10^-10 over -10 to +70C. There are TCXO’s that > will get below > 5x10^-9 over that range and use far less power. There are OCXO’s that will get > to better temperature stability numbers over that range. Neither one > will do the long > term aging that a Rb will. > > 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.
