Well I have been looking at the data in the https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325499937_A_portable_cold_87_Rb_ atomic_clock_with_frequency_instability_at_one_day_in_the_10-15_range
link and find that maybe they are overstating their performance! In the plot of figure 5 my HP 5065A almost perfectly matches the Allan deviation out to 1000 Sec.! (Although mine does have VERY good performance) Also if you look at figure 7 all the Maser data shown seems to be from poorly operating Masers so any judgement of better clock performance versus the Masers is a bit much! The figure 5 data looks much better but still is not beating a good active Maser. The EFOS2 a 1982 vintage Maser as well as the MHM 2010 and several other modern Masers I could find data for show between 2 and 5X10-15th at 1000 Sec. The MHM 2010 specs at 5X10-15th at 100Sec and 2.0X10-15th at 1000Sec All the Masers shown are worse than that spec! Also my old Kvarz passive maser has 2x10-13th at 100 Sec just shy of matching the top two Masers at 100Sec, which I don't believe! Something does not add up in their data! So I'm not really that impressed and would take an Active or Passive Maser anyday. Just wonder if some 5065A can get so impressive that they don't just make a modern large/cool cell classic Rubidium with modern electronics technology! Certainly would be cheaper and more long lived also. Just my thoughts! Cheers, Corby _______________________________________________ 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.
