Thank you! This is a great manual for time interval measurement. I'll go with
10811.
---------------------------------------
(Mr.) Taka Kamiya
I'm stuck in a wormhole.... Hello, worms!
On Friday, June 14, 2019, 12:28:26 AM EDT, Anders Wallin
<[email protected]> wrote:
page 48 here has some notes on time-base
error:http://leapsecond.com/hpan/an200-3.pdf
for time-interval measurement the number of digits matter. if you keep
time-intervals 'small', say 123.45 ns (probably can't resolve much below 10ps
anyway with a TICC) then a time-base with only about 5-6 digits of
stability&accuracy is sufficient - even if you are measuring two good H-masers
against each other.The OCXO may have better short-term stability compared to
the Rb.
Anders
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:01 AM Taka Kamiya via time-nuts
<[email protected]> wrote:
I am building a TICC-IN-A-BOX. Basically TICC + TADD-2 mini + reference
oscillator.
Initially, I was going to use HP11811-6011 but I am also considering PRS10. (I
already own both) While I believe 11811 is sufficient, PRS10 can be kept off
and reaches usable state (physics lock) faster, while 11811 has to be kept on
or otherwise usable stability will be few hours.
I do have a house clock but since it can be a subject of measurement, I want my
TICC-IN-A-BOX to have an independent clock.
Am I thinking correctly?
---------------------------------------
(Mr.) Taka Kamiya
I'm stuck in a wormhole.... Hello, worms!
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe, go to
http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
and follow the instructions there.
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe, go to
http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
and follow the instructions there.
