On 2019-11-09 08:05, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> --------
> In message <aabq6nrvaaj9v...@smtpout01.dca.untd.com>, cdel...@juno.com writes:
> [long list of all the work to be done before the classical gas-cell Rb
> improves materially]
> You are sort of making my point here Corby.
> It is not like people have not been improving the Rb-Gas-cell, but if
> you want to improve it an order of magnitude all the myriad of "small
> issues" to fix add up real fast, and when you are done with all of
> it, you will still have frequency drift.
... and these devices address a different aspect as per Michael's point.
It's not for the phase-noise, but for long-term stability, so that would
be instead of cesium beams or fountains. Gas-cell standards cannot
really solve that because the myriad of issues turn out an unknown
device frequency shift, which altought can be stable is not suitable as
standard. Rather, these devices could allow for much more affordable
contribution to the second/TAI rate in international timekeeping.


time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to 
and follow the instructions there.

Reply via email to