Re: [time-nuts] ***SPAM*** Re: Why discipline Rubidium oscillator?

[Mike Cook]

> Le 20 nov. 2017 à 20:53, Dana Whitlow  a écrit :
> 
> 
> 
> In my pre-retirement job I rode herd on an active Hydrogen maser system,and 
> even
> that has a clear drift tendency.  Generally a couple or three times per
> year I had to make a frequency adjustment in the neighborhood of 3E-14.  And 
> still being
> privy to its performance, I was amused to note that its drift tendency was
> interrupted by the hurricane Maria.  On the day of eye passage over the site 
> the frequencysuddenly
> decreased by a few parts in 10^14, held about constant for roughly a week,then
> resumed almost its original value and drift rate thereafter.  If anybody 
> inthis group
> can explain* that* behavior (that is, held for a week before resuming old
> habits), I’d love to learn about it.

  You don’t mention the make of the instrument, but I suspect the same basic 
technology is used by all.
To quote from the Oscilloquartz page on their CH1-76A product:
«  The quantum device is used as a frequency discriminator in an automatic 
frequency tuning system of a crystal oscillator. » 
They don’t however quote stability relative to air pressure. However…..
It is known that atmospheric pressure changes can induce OCXO frequency changes 
due to deformation of the crystal envelope causing stray capacitance changes.
As the eye of a hurricane has greatly reduced air pressure than normal, by as 
much as 15%, it could be related.


> 
> Dana
> 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Bob kb8tq  wrote:
> 
>> Hi
>> 
>> There is no direct relation for an Rb to 10 MYz. Cs beam tubes are what
>> have a direct relation.
>> Even then, the qualifier is “under standard conditions”. They are
>> sensitive to magnetic field. Rb’s
>> also are sensitive to magnetic field. Both can be tuned by varying the
>> field. In the case of an Rb
>> that also takes care of a multitude of other issues.
>> 
>> In the case of Rb, there is a distribution of cells coming out of the
>> manufacturing process. Some
>> are pretty close to the “right” frequency. Others are way off (as in 100’s
>> of KHz or more). All of them
>> are capable of meeting the required specs. DDS techniques allow those
>> cells to be used in a
>> production part. That increases the yield and thus drops the production
>> cost.
>> 
>> Since you now magically have a DDS in the Rb, you can do all sorts of
>> interesting things. If you
>> suddenly need a 9.99900 MHz standard …. here it is … If you need to do
>> temperature compensation
>> via a lookup table … it just takes a bit of testing and some code to make
>> it happen. Indeed, the DDS
>> does also give you some issues. Without some sort of cleanup oscillator,
>> you will have spurs and
>> phase noise on the output.
>> 
>> Lots of fun ….
>> 
>> Bob
>> 
>> 
>>> On Nov 20, 2017, at 1:34 PM, Jerry Hancock  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I know this is going to sound dumb as I know many GPSDOs had rubidium
>> oscillators in them.  I can see why, in that during holdover, they would
>> tend to be more stable vs others, but given that there is a direct
>> mathematical relationship between the rubidium frequency and potentially
>> the 10Mhz desired output frequency, why do they have to be disciplined or
>> better yet, what advantage does it bring?  Also, I can see how you
>> discipline a DOCXO with the external voltage, how do you discipline a
>> rubidium?  Pulse stretching?
>>> 
>>> I guess I don’t understand how the technology works, but it seems like
>> an RF signal is swept that would be used to detect a dip at a pretty well
>> defined frequency.  This dip can be used to discipline the oscillator to
>> something like 9Ghz or a factor of what, 900+ times better than 10Mhz.  So
>> wouldn’t that be able to get your desired 10Mhz to 10,000,000.001 or pretty
>> much my level of measurement?  Or does is the dip not quite that precise?
>> If you can point me to a write-up on this I’ll go away.
>>> 
>>> Thanks to Gilbert for providing me with at least one rubidium oscillator
>> that is working out of 5 though 2 others seems to stay locked for a few
>> hours during my testing.
>>> 
>>> Jerry
>>> ___
>>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
>>> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/
>> mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>>> and follow the instructions there.
>> 
>> ___
>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
>> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/
>> mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>> and follow the instructions there.
>> 
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who 
have not got it. »
George Bernard Shaw

___

Re: [time-nuts] X72 Heatsink

[Jerry Hancock]

Mark, I don’t know if I want to do 150 of these like the last time I signed-up 
for a project like this, but if someone wants their heatsink drilled and 
milled, send them to me with instructions for the cost of shipping back.

If you want to ship the entire case to me, I’ll drill and mill and tap them as 
needed and ship them to the users.  They look like they will fit in a small 
flat rate box.  I think the going rate is like $6 after PayPal fees.

Jerry

> On Nov 20, 2017, at 6:39 PM, Mark Sims  wrote:
> 
> I stopped by a local electronics store today and came across a heatsink that 
> is the perfect size for the X72.  To mount the X72 to it you would need to 
> drill four holes in the corners and do a little Dremel work on the outer fins 
> to get to the screw heads.   The store owner says he has a case of them in 
> the warehouse and will dig them out.  I should know more this weekend.
> 
> If it works out, I can include one with the X72 breakout boards for probably 
> $7 in the US.  I need to see what it would add to the overseas shipping.  
> They weigh around 260 
> grams.___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Why discipline Rubidium oscillator?

[Jerry Hancock]

Thanks, Bob, I’ll have to start looking now. 

I’ve been looking for other counters, I only have 5371a x 2 and 5335a x 2 and 
some other TeK modules.  I went back and was reading the time-nut counter 
thread from 2008 and will have to keep looking for something I want to afford.

Tonight I was plotting one of the rubidium modules Gilbert gave me against my 
Lucent GPSDO.  I was just measuring frequency and I had some glitches that I 
think are from triggering.  The stdev on some 2 hours runs were .0017 with a 
frequency of 9,999,999.956 average.  I have a new power supply coming tomorrow 
and I’ll be able to move it into a room where I can try to tweak it closer to 
10M.

The Adev plot of the Frequency was sort of weird looking, sort of like a 
flattened “U” with the dip around 10E-15.  I would have thought it should be 
more like a typical downward sloping line. I’ll have to read up and see what 
this indicates.

So much to learn, so little time.

Thanks for all the pointers. Someone should write a book, “Time-nuttery for 
dummies”.  

Jerry


> On Nov 20, 2017, at 9:54 PM, Bob Bownes  wrote:
> 
> 
> Cost of a cesium clock can go from less than you pay for a pair of doxco‘s to 
> many tens of thousands. I think 5071’s are in 
> 
>> On Nov 20, 2017, at 23:50, Jerry Hancock  wrote:
>> 
>> I read up on the GPS L1/L2 and I think there is an L5.
>> 
>> And when you say “on the market” the real question is “can be purchased for 
>> 1/20th the price of new” like all the other re-purposed toys we buy,
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Jerry
>> 
>> 
>>> On Nov 20, 2017, at 6:43 PM, Dana Whitlow  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
>> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>> and follow the instructions there.
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Why discipline Rubidium oscillator?

[Bob Bownes]

Oops cat hit ‘send’

5071’s I’ve seen for as low as about 9k, but usually in the 15-30 range. I 
don’t want to know what they are new. 

5061’s can be had for under $1000. If you are very lucky, under $500. 

And once you have the standard, you need the counters. And other analysis 
tools...pretty soon your spouse will know you’ve gone off the deep end. 

Anyone want an sr530 lock in amplifier that eats fuses and voltage regulators?

Bob

> On Nov 20, 2017, at 23:50, Jerry Hancock  wrote:
> 
> I read up on the GPS L1/L2 and I think there is an L5.
> 
> And when you say “on the market” the real question is “can be purchased for 
> 1/20th the price of new” like all the other re-purposed toys we buy,
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jerry
> 
> 
>> On Nov 20, 2017, at 6:43 PM, Dana Whitlow  wrote:
>> 
>> 
> 
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Why discipline Rubidium oscillator?

[Bob Bownes]

Cost of a cesium clock can go from less than you pay for a pair of doxco‘s to 
many tens of thousands. I think 5071’s are in 

> On Nov 20, 2017, at 23:50, Jerry Hancock  wrote:
> 
> I read up on the GPS L1/L2 and I think there is an L5.
> 
> And when you say “on the market” the real question is “can be purchased for 
> 1/20th the price of new” like all the other re-purposed toys we buy,
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jerry
> 
> 
>> On Nov 20, 2017, at 6:43 PM, Dana Whitlow  wrote:
>> 
>> 
> 
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

[time-nuts] Why discipline Rubidium oscillator?

[Mark Sims]

I did hack together some code to GPS discipline a HP-5071.  But it only 
disciplines the oscillator if the unit is in standby and the cesium tube is 
off... I did say it was a hack...

--

> You can (or course) do a GPS disciplined Cs standard. That’s not easy to do, 
> but some are attempting it ….
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Why discipline Rubidium oscillator?

[Jerry Hancock]

I read up on the GPS L1/L2 and I think there is an L5.

And when you say “on the market” the real question is “can be purchased for 
1/20th the price of new” like all the other re-purposed toys we buy,

Regards,

Jerry


> On Nov 20, 2017, at 6:43 PM, Dana Whitlow  wrote:
> 
> 

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Why discipline Rubidium oscillator?

[Dana Whitlow]

As far as I knew, the highest level steps *actually on the market* are
the Cesium beam clocks and the active hydrogen masers.  Are any
of the newer technologies available for purchase today?

Dana


On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Hal Murray  wrote:

> > aren’t too many steps after that
>
> Your imagination is broken.
>
> There are lots more steps.  Most of them are very expensive.
>
>
> --
> These are my opinions.  I hate spam.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/
> mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

[time-nuts] X72 Heatsink

[Mark Sims]

I stopped by a local electronics store today and came across a heatsink that is 
the perfect size for the X72.  To mount the X72 to it you would need to drill 
four holes in the corners and do a little Dremel work on the outer fins to get 
to the screw heads.   The store owner says he has a case of them in the 
warehouse and will dig them out.  I should know more this weekend.

If it works out, I can include one with the X72 breakout boards for probably $7 
in the US.  I need to see what it would add to the overseas shipping.  They 
weigh around 260 grams.___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Why discipline Rubidium oscillator?

[Jim Harman]

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 7:14 PM, Jerry Hancock  wrote:

>   Have to do a cost/benefit analysis for the wife...


I hope she is not the type of person who sets her watch 5 minutes ahead so
she will arrive on time!
-- 

--Jim Harman
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Why discipline Rubidium oscillator?

[Bob kb8tq]

Hi

Most GPSDO’s run the GPS signal only on one “band” (L1). If you want to 
eliminate the errors in the ionosphere
correction process you go to.a double band (L1 and L2) GPS receiver. Since 
there are fewer potential errors in 
the GPS signal, you may have fewer net errors in your GPSDO.

For the Cs - the issue is a stand alone reference. How can you be sure that GPS 
is not lying to you? The only way
to check something like that is with a stand alone reference. That’s somewhere 
between priceless and worthless
depending on which half of the family you happen to ask. 

You can (or course) do a GPS disciplined Cs standard. That’s not easy to do, 
but some are attempting it ….

Lots to do…

Bob

> On Nov 20, 2017, at 7:14 PM, Jerry Hancock  wrote:
> 
> Not to junk up the mailboxes, but I have the multiple GPSDOs.  Don’t know 
> what you mean by L1/L2 GPSDO, is that a quality statement?  
> 
> Also, what would the next step cost me for a Cesium Beam?  Roughly?  And what 
> order of magnitude improvement would that be for the cost?  Have to do a 
> cost/benefit analysis for the wife...
> 
> 
>> On Nov 20, 2017, at 4:09 PM, Bob kb8tq  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi
>> 
>> Ummm ….. e ….. multiple GPSDO’s …. L1/L2 GPSDO(s) …. Cs standard (s) … 
>> Maser(s) …. Ensembles of all of the above ….
>> 
>> There’s *lots* of steps still to take ….
>> 
>> Bob
>> 
>>> On Nov 20, 2017, at 6:31 PM, Jerry Hancock  wrote:
>>> 
>>> One step at a time.
>>> 
>>> 2yrs ago when the time-bug hit, I had a crystal oscillator.  6 months 
>>> later, DOCXO then GPSDO then Rubidium soon to be with GPSDO and there 
>>> aren’t too many steps after that…
>>> 
>>> I also gave my brother the bug the other day…
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 On Nov 20, 2017, at 3:05 PM, Bob kb8tq  wrote:
 
 Hi
 
 It’s very much a “somewhere near that number” sort of thing with an Rb. 
 The 
 “thing” you are looking at is quantum mechanical in nature. Unfortunately 
 that
 by its self does not make it perfect. A beam tube (as opposed to a gas 
 cell) 
 isolates things better. 
 
 A 5061 is a beam tube device. A 5065 is gas cell based. It is very 
 important to note that
 accuracy and stability are two different things …. The beam tube is more 
 accurate. 
 The gas cell is more stable (over some range of tau). 
 
 A normal Rb standard has a bit of this and that in the bulb. These other 
 gasses
 help in various ways. They each also add a bit of “pull” to the frequency 
 one way
 or the other. They get you away from your “magic number” but the benefits 
 they
 deliver are worth the trouble. The exact gas mix gets into the “secret 
 sauce” of
 the Rb manufacturer. They each optimize things a bit differently. The 
 walls 
 of the bulb get into the act ….
 
 Beam standards are actually a bit old these days. The more modern approach 
 would be a fountain (toss the ion straight up and let it fall back to 
 you). An even 
 more modern approach would be a trapped ion standard. The amount of money
 involved goes up dramatically with each of those steps. You get rid of 
 this and 
 that subtle effect with each improvement. Accuracy gets better and better. 
 
 Lots of choices !!!
 
 Bob
 
> On Nov 20, 2017, at 3:28 PM, Jerry Hancock  wrote:
> 
> Bob, I was referring to the rubidium standard of 6834682610.904 Hz.  For 
> some reason I thought it was closer to 9Ghz.
> 
> I assume then rubidium standards oscillate (if that is the correct term) 
> somewhere around that number but not exact or is it in the detection 
> where things fall down?
> 
> 
> 
>> On Nov 20, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Bob kb8tq  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi
>> 
>> There is no direct relation for an Rb to 10 MYz. Cs beam tubes are what 
>> have a direct relation. 
>> Even then, the qualifier is “under standard conditions”. They are 
>> sensitive to magnetic field. Rb’s
>> also are sensitive to magnetic field. Both can be tuned by varying the 
>> field. In the case of an Rb
>> that also takes care of a multitude of other issues.
>> 
>> In the case of Rb, there is a distribution of cells coming out of the 
>> manufacturing process. Some
>> are pretty close to the “right” frequency. Others are way off (as in 
>> 100’s of KHz or more). All of them
>> are capable of meeting the required specs. DDS techniques allow those 
>> cells to be used in a 
>> production part. That increases the yield and thus drops the production 
>> cost. 
>> 
>> Since you now magically have a DDS in the Rb, you can do all sorts of 
>> interesting things. If you
>> suddenly need a 9.99900 MHz standard …. here it is … If you need to do 
>> temperature compensation 
>> via a 

[time-nuts] Why discipline Rubidium oscillator

[Mark Sims]

For you,  nerd dick waving.

For her,  bragging rights!  She will have the most accurate egg timer on the 
block (assuming she is the head chef in the house).



> Have to do a cost/benefit analysis for the wife...
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Why discipline Rubidium oscillator?

[Hal Murray]

> aren’t too many steps after that

Your imagination is broken.

There are lots more steps.  Most of them are very expensive.


-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.



___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Why discipline Rubidium oscillator?

[Jerry Hancock]

Not to junk up the mailboxes, but I have the multiple GPSDOs.  Don’t know what 
you mean by L1/L2 GPSDO, is that a quality statement?  

Also, what would the next step cost me for a Cesium Beam?  Roughly?  And what 
order of magnitude improvement would that be for the cost?  Have to do a 
cost/benefit analysis for the wife...


> On Nov 20, 2017, at 4:09 PM, Bob kb8tq  wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> Ummm ….. e ….. multiple GPSDO’s …. L1/L2 GPSDO(s) …. Cs standard (s) … 
> Maser(s) …. Ensembles of all of the above ….
> 
> There’s *lots* of steps still to take ….
> 
> Bob
> 
>> On Nov 20, 2017, at 6:31 PM, Jerry Hancock  wrote:
>> 
>> One step at a time.
>> 
>> 2yrs ago when the time-bug hit, I had a crystal oscillator.  6 months later, 
>> DOCXO then GPSDO then Rubidium soon to be with GPSDO and there aren’t too 
>> many steps after that…
>> 
>> I also gave my brother the bug the other day…
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Nov 20, 2017, at 3:05 PM, Bob kb8tq  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> It’s very much a “somewhere near that number” sort of thing with an Rb. The 
>>> “thing” you are looking at is quantum mechanical in nature. Unfortunately 
>>> that
>>> by its self does not make it perfect. A beam tube (as opposed to a gas 
>>> cell) 
>>> isolates things better. 
>>> 
>>> A 5061 is a beam tube device. A 5065 is gas cell based. It is very 
>>> important to note that
>>> accuracy and stability are two different things …. The beam tube is more 
>>> accurate. 
>>> The gas cell is more stable (over some range of tau). 
>>> 
>>> A normal Rb standard has a bit of this and that in the bulb. These other 
>>> gasses
>>> help in various ways. They each also add a bit of “pull” to the frequency 
>>> one way
>>> or the other. They get you away from your “magic number” but the benefits 
>>> they
>>> deliver are worth the trouble. The exact gas mix gets into the “secret 
>>> sauce” of
>>> the Rb manufacturer. They each optimize things a bit differently. The walls 
>>> of the bulb get into the act ….
>>> 
>>> Beam standards are actually a bit old these days. The more modern approach 
>>> would be a fountain (toss the ion straight up and let it fall back to you). 
>>> An even 
>>> more modern approach would be a trapped ion standard. The amount of money
>>> involved goes up dramatically with each of those steps. You get rid of this 
>>> and 
>>> that subtle effect with each improvement. Accuracy gets better and better. 
>>> 
>>> Lots of choices !!!
>>> 
>>> Bob
>>> 
 On Nov 20, 2017, at 3:28 PM, Jerry Hancock  wrote:
 
 Bob, I was referring to the rubidium standard of 6834682610.904 Hz.  For 
 some reason I thought it was closer to 9Ghz.
 
 I assume then rubidium standards oscillate (if that is the correct term) 
 somewhere around that number but not exact or is it in the detection where 
 things fall down?
 
 
 
> On Nov 20, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Bob kb8tq  wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> There is no direct relation for an Rb to 10 MYz. Cs beam tubes are what 
> have a direct relation. 
> Even then, the qualifier is “under standard conditions”. They are 
> sensitive to magnetic field. Rb’s
> also are sensitive to magnetic field. Both can be tuned by varying the 
> field. In the case of an Rb
> that also takes care of a multitude of other issues.
> 
> In the case of Rb, there is a distribution of cells coming out of the 
> manufacturing process. Some
> are pretty close to the “right” frequency. Others are way off (as in 
> 100’s of KHz or more). All of them
> are capable of meeting the required specs. DDS techniques allow those 
> cells to be used in a 
> production part. That increases the yield and thus drops the production 
> cost. 
> 
> Since you now magically have a DDS in the Rb, you can do all sorts of 
> interesting things. If you
> suddenly need a 9.99900 MHz standard …. here it is … If you need to do 
> temperature compensation 
> via a lookup table … it just takes a bit of testing and some code to make 
> it happen. Indeed, the DDS
> does also give you some issues. Without some sort of cleanup oscillator, 
> you will have spurs and 
> phase noise on the output.
> 
> Lots of fun ….
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
>> On Nov 20, 2017, at 1:34 PM, Jerry Hancock  wrote:
>> 
>> I know this is going to sound dumb as I know many GPSDOs had rubidium 
>> oscillators in them.  I can see why, in that during holdover, they would 
>> tend to be more stable vs others, but given that there is a direct 
>> mathematical relationship between the rubidium frequency and potentially 
>> the 10Mhz desired output frequency, why do they have to be disciplined 
>> or better yet, what advantage does it bring?  Also, I can see how you 
>> discipline a DOCXO with the external 

Re: [time-nuts] Why discipline Rubidium oscillator?

[Bob kb8tq]

Hi

Ummm ….. e ….. multiple GPSDO’s …. L1/L2 GPSDO(s) …. Cs standard (s) … 
Maser(s) …. Ensembles of all of the above ….

There’s *lots* of steps still to take ….

Bob

> On Nov 20, 2017, at 6:31 PM, Jerry Hancock  wrote:
> 
> One step at a time.
> 
> 2yrs ago when the time-bug hit, I had a crystal oscillator.  6 months later, 
> DOCXO then GPSDO then Rubidium soon to be with GPSDO and there aren’t too 
> many steps after that…
> 
> I also gave my brother the bug the other day…
> 
> 
> 
>> On Nov 20, 2017, at 3:05 PM, Bob kb8tq  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi
>> 
>> It’s very much a “somewhere near that number” sort of thing with an Rb. The 
>> “thing” you are looking at is quantum mechanical in nature. Unfortunately 
>> that
>> by its self does not make it perfect. A beam tube (as opposed to a gas cell) 
>> isolates things better. 
>> 
>> A 5061 is a beam tube device. A 5065 is gas cell based. It is very important 
>> to note that
>> accuracy and stability are two different things …. The beam tube is more 
>> accurate. 
>> The gas cell is more stable (over some range of tau). 
>> 
>> A normal Rb standard has a bit of this and that in the bulb. These other 
>> gasses
>> help in various ways. They each also add a bit of “pull” to the frequency 
>> one way
>> or the other. They get you away from your “magic number” but the benefits 
>> they
>> deliver are worth the trouble. The exact gas mix gets into the “secret 
>> sauce” of
>> the Rb manufacturer. They each optimize things a bit differently. The walls 
>> of the bulb get into the act ….
>> 
>> Beam standards are actually a bit old these days. The more modern approach 
>> would be a fountain (toss the ion straight up and let it fall back to you). 
>> An even 
>> more modern approach would be a trapped ion standard. The amount of money
>> involved goes up dramatically with each of those steps. You get rid of this 
>> and 
>> that subtle effect with each improvement. Accuracy gets better and better. 
>> 
>> Lots of choices !!!
>> 
>> Bob
>> 
>>> On Nov 20, 2017, at 3:28 PM, Jerry Hancock  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Bob, I was referring to the rubidium standard of 6834682610.904 Hz.  For 
>>> some reason I thought it was closer to 9Ghz.
>>> 
>>> I assume then rubidium standards oscillate (if that is the correct term) 
>>> somewhere around that number but not exact or is it in the detection where 
>>> things fall down?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 On Nov 20, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Bob kb8tq  wrote:
 
 Hi
 
 There is no direct relation for an Rb to 10 MYz. Cs beam tubes are what 
 have a direct relation. 
 Even then, the qualifier is “under standard conditions”. They are 
 sensitive to magnetic field. Rb’s
 also are sensitive to magnetic field. Both can be tuned by varying the 
 field. In the case of an Rb
 that also takes care of a multitude of other issues.
 
 In the case of Rb, there is a distribution of cells coming out of the 
 manufacturing process. Some
 are pretty close to the “right” frequency. Others are way off (as in 100’s 
 of KHz or more). All of them
 are capable of meeting the required specs. DDS techniques allow those 
 cells to be used in a 
 production part. That increases the yield and thus drops the production 
 cost. 
 
 Since you now magically have a DDS in the Rb, you can do all sorts of 
 interesting things. If you
 suddenly need a 9.99900 MHz standard …. here it is … If you need to do 
 temperature compensation 
 via a lookup table … it just takes a bit of testing and some code to make 
 it happen. Indeed, the DDS
 does also give you some issues. Without some sort of cleanup oscillator, 
 you will have spurs and 
 phase noise on the output.
 
 Lots of fun ….
 
 Bob
 
 
> On Nov 20, 2017, at 1:34 PM, Jerry Hancock  wrote:
> 
> I know this is going to sound dumb as I know many GPSDOs had rubidium 
> oscillators in them.  I can see why, in that during holdover, they would 
> tend to be more stable vs others, but given that there is a direct 
> mathematical relationship between the rubidium frequency and potentially 
> the 10Mhz desired output frequency, why do they have to be disciplined or 
> better yet, what advantage does it bring?  Also, I can see how you 
> discipline a DOCXO with the external voltage, how do you discipline a 
> rubidium?  Pulse stretching?  
> 
> I guess I don’t understand how the technology works, but it seems like an 
> RF signal is swept that would be used to detect a dip at a pretty well 
> defined frequency.  This dip can be used to discipline the oscillator to 
> something like 9Ghz or a factor of what, 900+ times better than 10Mhz.  
> So wouldn’t that be able to get your desired 10Mhz to 10,000,000.001 or 
> pretty much my level of measurement?  Or does 

Re: [time-nuts] Why discipline Rubidium oscillator?

[Jerry Hancock]

One step at a time.

2yrs ago when the time-bug hit, I had a crystal oscillator.  6 months later, 
DOCXO then GPSDO then Rubidium soon to be with GPSDO and there aren’t too many 
steps after that…

I also gave my brother the bug the other day…



> On Nov 20, 2017, at 3:05 PM, Bob kb8tq  wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> It’s very much a “somewhere near that number” sort of thing with an Rb. The 
> “thing” you are looking at is quantum mechanical in nature. Unfortunately that
> by its self does not make it perfect. A beam tube (as opposed to a gas cell) 
> isolates things better. 
> 
> A 5061 is a beam tube device. A 5065 is gas cell based. It is very important 
> to note that
> accuracy and stability are two different things …. The beam tube is more 
> accurate. 
> The gas cell is more stable (over some range of tau). 
> 
> A normal Rb standard has a bit of this and that in the bulb. These other 
> gasses
> help in various ways. They each also add a bit of “pull” to the frequency one 
> way
> or the other. They get you away from your “magic number” but the benefits they
> deliver are worth the trouble. The exact gas mix gets into the “secret sauce” 
> of
> the Rb manufacturer. They each optimize things a bit differently. The walls 
> of the bulb get into the act ….
> 
> Beam standards are actually a bit old these days. The more modern approach 
> would be a fountain (toss the ion straight up and let it fall back to you). 
> An even 
> more modern approach would be a trapped ion standard. The amount of money
> involved goes up dramatically with each of those steps. You get rid of this 
> and 
> that subtle effect with each improvement. Accuracy gets better and better. 
> 
> Lots of choices !!!
> 
> Bob
> 
>> On Nov 20, 2017, at 3:28 PM, Jerry Hancock  wrote:
>> 
>> Bob, I was referring to the rubidium standard of 6834682610.904 Hz.  For 
>> some reason I thought it was closer to 9Ghz.
>> 
>> I assume then rubidium standards oscillate (if that is the correct term) 
>> somewhere around that number but not exact or is it in the detection where 
>> things fall down?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Nov 20, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Bob kb8tq  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> There is no direct relation for an Rb to 10 MYz. Cs beam tubes are what 
>>> have a direct relation. 
>>> Even then, the qualifier is “under standard conditions”. They are sensitive 
>>> to magnetic field. Rb’s
>>> also are sensitive to magnetic field. Both can be tuned by varying the 
>>> field. In the case of an Rb
>>> that also takes care of a multitude of other issues.
>>> 
>>> In the case of Rb, there is a distribution of cells coming out of the 
>>> manufacturing process. Some
>>> are pretty close to the “right” frequency. Others are way off (as in 100’s 
>>> of KHz or more). All of them
>>> are capable of meeting the required specs. DDS techniques allow those cells 
>>> to be used in a 
>>> production part. That increases the yield and thus drops the production 
>>> cost. 
>>> 
>>> Since you now magically have a DDS in the Rb, you can do all sorts of 
>>> interesting things. If you
>>> suddenly need a 9.99900 MHz standard …. here it is … If you need to do 
>>> temperature compensation 
>>> via a lookup table … it just takes a bit of testing and some code to make 
>>> it happen. Indeed, the DDS
>>> does also give you some issues. Without some sort of cleanup oscillator, 
>>> you will have spurs and 
>>> phase noise on the output.
>>> 
>>> Lots of fun ….
>>> 
>>> Bob
>>> 
>>> 
 On Nov 20, 2017, at 1:34 PM, Jerry Hancock  wrote:
 
 I know this is going to sound dumb as I know many GPSDOs had rubidium 
 oscillators in them.  I can see why, in that during holdover, they would 
 tend to be more stable vs others, but given that there is a direct 
 mathematical relationship between the rubidium frequency and potentially 
 the 10Mhz desired output frequency, why do they have to be disciplined or 
 better yet, what advantage does it bring?  Also, I can see how you 
 discipline a DOCXO with the external voltage, how do you discipline a 
 rubidium?  Pulse stretching?  
 
 I guess I don’t understand how the technology works, but it seems like an 
 RF signal is swept that would be used to detect a dip at a pretty well 
 defined frequency.  This dip can be used to discipline the oscillator to 
 something like 9Ghz or a factor of what, 900+ times better than 10Mhz.  So 
 wouldn’t that be able to get your desired 10Mhz to 10,000,000.001 or 
 pretty much my level of measurement?  Or does is the dip not quite that 
 precise?  If you can point me to a write-up on this I’ll go away.
 
 Thanks to Gilbert for providing me with at least one rubidium oscillator 
 that is working out of 5 though 2 others seems to stay locked for a few 
 hours during my testing.
 
 Jerry
 ___
 time-nuts 

Re: [time-nuts] Why discipline Rubidium oscillator?

[Bob kb8tq]

Hi

It’s very much a “somewhere near that number” sort of thing with an Rb. The 
“thing” you are looking at is quantum mechanical in nature. Unfortunately that
by its self does not make it perfect. A beam tube (as opposed to a gas cell) 
isolates things better. 

A 5061 is a beam tube device. A 5065 is gas cell based. It is very important to 
note that
accuracy and stability are two different things …. The beam tube is more 
accurate. 
The gas cell is more stable (over some range of tau). 

A normal Rb standard has a bit of this and that in the bulb. These other gasses
help in various ways. They each also add a bit of “pull” to the frequency one 
way
or the other. They get you away from your “magic number” but the benefits they
deliver are worth the trouble. The exact gas mix gets into the “secret sauce” of
the Rb manufacturer. They each optimize things a bit differently. The walls 
of the bulb get into the act ….

Beam standards are actually a bit old these days. The more modern approach 
would be a fountain (toss the ion straight up and let it fall back to you). An 
even 
more modern approach would be a trapped ion standard. The amount of money
involved goes up dramatically with each of those steps. You get rid of this and 
that subtle effect with each improvement. Accuracy gets better and better. 

Lots of choices !!!

Bob

> On Nov 20, 2017, at 3:28 PM, Jerry Hancock  wrote:
> 
> Bob, I was referring to the rubidium standard of 6834682610.904 Hz.  For some 
> reason I thought it was closer to 9Ghz.
> 
> I assume then rubidium standards oscillate (if that is the correct term) 
> somewhere around that number but not exact or is it in the detection where 
> things fall down?
> 
> 
> 
>> On Nov 20, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Bob kb8tq  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi
>> 
>> There is no direct relation for an Rb to 10 MYz. Cs beam tubes are what have 
>> a direct relation. 
>> Even then, the qualifier is “under standard conditions”. They are sensitive 
>> to magnetic field. Rb’s
>> also are sensitive to magnetic field. Both can be tuned by varying the 
>> field. In the case of an Rb
>> that also takes care of a multitude of other issues.
>> 
>> In the case of Rb, there is a distribution of cells coming out of the 
>> manufacturing process. Some
>> are pretty close to the “right” frequency. Others are way off (as in 100’s 
>> of KHz or more). All of them
>> are capable of meeting the required specs. DDS techniques allow those cells 
>> to be used in a 
>> production part. That increases the yield and thus drops the production 
>> cost. 
>> 
>> Since you now magically have a DDS in the Rb, you can do all sorts of 
>> interesting things. If you
>> suddenly need a 9.99900 MHz standard …. here it is … If you need to do 
>> temperature compensation 
>> via a lookup table … it just takes a bit of testing and some code to make it 
>> happen. Indeed, the DDS
>> does also give you some issues. Without some sort of cleanup oscillator, you 
>> will have spurs and 
>> phase noise on the output.
>> 
>> Lots of fun ….
>> 
>> Bob
>> 
>> 
>>> On Nov 20, 2017, at 1:34 PM, Jerry Hancock  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I know this is going to sound dumb as I know many GPSDOs had rubidium 
>>> oscillators in them.  I can see why, in that during holdover, they would 
>>> tend to be more stable vs others, but given that there is a direct 
>>> mathematical relationship between the rubidium frequency and potentially 
>>> the 10Mhz desired output frequency, why do they have to be disciplined or 
>>> better yet, what advantage does it bring?  Also, I can see how you 
>>> discipline a DOCXO with the external voltage, how do you discipline a 
>>> rubidium?  Pulse stretching?  
>>> 
>>> I guess I don’t understand how the technology works, but it seems like an 
>>> RF signal is swept that would be used to detect a dip at a pretty well 
>>> defined frequency.  This dip can be used to discipline the oscillator to 
>>> something like 9Ghz or a factor of what, 900+ times better than 10Mhz.  So 
>>> wouldn’t that be able to get your desired 10Mhz to 10,000,000.001 or pretty 
>>> much my level of measurement?  Or does is the dip not quite that precise?  
>>> If you can point me to a write-up on this I’ll go away.
>>> 
>>> Thanks to Gilbert for providing me with at least one rubidium oscillator 
>>> that is working out of 5 though 2 others seems to stay locked for a few 
>>> hours during my testing.
>>> 
>>> Jerry
>>> ___
>>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
>>> To unsubscribe, go to 
>>> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>>> and follow the instructions there.
>> 
>> ___
>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
>> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>> and follow the instructions there.
> 
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list 

Re: [time-nuts] Why discipline Rubidium oscillator?

[Dana Whitlow]

And even without problems like external magnetic fields, Rb oscillators do
drift with
age. Over a period of several years they may drift as much as ~1E-9, which
is a *huge*
error for serious time nuts.

In my pre-retirement job I rode herd on an active Hydrogen maser system,
and even
that has a clear drift tendency.  Generally a couple or three times per
year I had to
make a frequency adjustment in the neighborhood of 3E-14.  And still being
privy to
its performance, I was amused to note that its drift tendency was
interrupted by the
hurricane Maria.  On the day of eye passage over the site the frequency
suddenly
decreased by a few parts in 10^14, held about constant for roughly a week,
then
resumed almost its original value and drift rate thereafter.  If anybody in
this group
can explain* that* behavior (that is, held for a week before resuming old
habits), I'd
love to learn about it.

Dana


On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Bob kb8tq  wrote:

> Hi
>
> There is no direct relation for an Rb to 10 MYz. Cs beam tubes are what
> have a direct relation.
> Even then, the qualifier is “under standard conditions”. They are
> sensitive to magnetic field. Rb’s
> also are sensitive to magnetic field. Both can be tuned by varying the
> field. In the case of an Rb
> that also takes care of a multitude of other issues.
>
> In the case of Rb, there is a distribution of cells coming out of the
> manufacturing process. Some
> are pretty close to the “right” frequency. Others are way off (as in 100’s
> of KHz or more). All of them
> are capable of meeting the required specs. DDS techniques allow those
> cells to be used in a
> production part. That increases the yield and thus drops the production
> cost.
>
> Since you now magically have a DDS in the Rb, you can do all sorts of
> interesting things. If you
> suddenly need a 9.99900 MHz standard …. here it is … If you need to do
> temperature compensation
> via a lookup table … it just takes a bit of testing and some code to make
> it happen. Indeed, the DDS
> does also give you some issues. Without some sort of cleanup oscillator,
> you will have spurs and
> phase noise on the output.
>
> Lots of fun ….
>
> Bob
>
>
> > On Nov 20, 2017, at 1:34 PM, Jerry Hancock  wrote:
> >
> > I know this is going to sound dumb as I know many GPSDOs had rubidium
> oscillators in them.  I can see why, in that during holdover, they would
> tend to be more stable vs others, but given that there is a direct
> mathematical relationship between the rubidium frequency and potentially
> the 10Mhz desired output frequency, why do they have to be disciplined or
> better yet, what advantage does it bring?  Also, I can see how you
> discipline a DOCXO with the external voltage, how do you discipline a
> rubidium?  Pulse stretching?
> >
> > I guess I don’t understand how the technology works, but it seems like
> an RF signal is swept that would be used to detect a dip at a pretty well
> defined frequency.  This dip can be used to discipline the oscillator to
> something like 9Ghz or a factor of what, 900+ times better than 10Mhz.  So
> wouldn’t that be able to get your desired 10Mhz to 10,000,000.001 or pretty
> much my level of measurement?  Or does is the dip not quite that precise?
> If you can point me to a write-up on this I’ll go away.
> >
> > Thanks to Gilbert for providing me with at least one rubidium oscillator
> that is working out of 5 though 2 others seems to stay locked for a few
> hours during my testing.
> >
> > Jerry
> > ___
> > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/
> mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> > and follow the instructions there.
>
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/
> mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] HP5065A C-field mods and optical unit mods

[Poul-Henning Kamp]

In message <5AC3D7F0C1F14BAB8B7BE4A552034FCC@dell370>, ws at Yahoo via 
time-nuts writes:

>C-fields are current sensitive, so if they are wound with copper wire, any
>small change in their temperature, even when temperature controlled, could
>have a effect much greater than 1PPM on that current when driven from a
>fixed voltage thru a resistor.
>
>Does anyone use current drive?

The standard circuit is current drive...


-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp   | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer   | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Why discipline Rubidium oscillator?

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 8:28 PM, Jerry Hancock  wrote:
> Bob, I was referring to the rubidium standard of 6834682610.904 Hz.  For some 
> reason I thought it was closer to 9Ghz.
>
> I assume then rubidium standards oscillate (if that is the correct term) 
> somewhere around that number but not exact or is it in the detection where 
> things fall down?

I think you are confused by the difference between primary and
secondary standards.

A typical rb gas cell is a secondary standard.  Its exact frequency is
distorted by a number of factors like gas pressure, interaction with
the cell walls, and ambient magnetic fields which cannot be canceled
by the design of the standard.  This is why it is useful to discipline
a telecom rb against GPS, disciplining can be accomplished through
control of a biasing magnetic field.

Something like a cesium beam standard is able to internally cancel
most of these biases "under standard conditions".  A drift free
frequency source can also be constructed using rubidium, such as
rubidium fountains just as a secondary standard could be constructed
using cs-- like cs gas cell standards (such as the sa.45 CSAC).

[Hopefully I haven't mangled things].
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Why discipline Rubidium oscillator?

[Jerry Hancock]

Bob, I was referring to the rubidium standard of 6834682610.904 Hz.  For some 
reason I thought it was closer to 9Ghz.

I assume then rubidium standards oscillate (if that is the correct term) 
somewhere around that number but not exact or is it in the detection where 
things fall down?



> On Nov 20, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Bob kb8tq  wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> There is no direct relation for an Rb to 10 MYz. Cs beam tubes are what have 
> a direct relation. 
> Even then, the qualifier is “under standard conditions”. They are sensitive 
> to magnetic field. Rb’s
> also are sensitive to magnetic field. Both can be tuned by varying the field. 
> In the case of an Rb
> that also takes care of a multitude of other issues.
> 
> In the case of Rb, there is a distribution of cells coming out of the 
> manufacturing process. Some
> are pretty close to the “right” frequency. Others are way off (as in 100’s of 
> KHz or more). All of them
> are capable of meeting the required specs. DDS techniques allow those cells 
> to be used in a 
> production part. That increases the yield and thus drops the production cost. 
> 
> Since you now magically have a DDS in the Rb, you can do all sorts of 
> interesting things. If you
> suddenly need a 9.99900 MHz standard …. here it is … If you need to do 
> temperature compensation 
> via a lookup table … it just takes a bit of testing and some code to make it 
> happen. Indeed, the DDS
> does also give you some issues. Without some sort of cleanup oscillator, you 
> will have spurs and 
> phase noise on the output.
> 
> Lots of fun ….
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
>> On Nov 20, 2017, at 1:34 PM, Jerry Hancock  wrote:
>> 
>> I know this is going to sound dumb as I know many GPSDOs had rubidium 
>> oscillators in them.  I can see why, in that during holdover, they would 
>> tend to be more stable vs others, but given that there is a direct 
>> mathematical relationship between the rubidium frequency and potentially the 
>> 10Mhz desired output frequency, why do they have to be disciplined or better 
>> yet, what advantage does it bring?  Also, I can see how you discipline a 
>> DOCXO with the external voltage, how do you discipline a rubidium?  Pulse 
>> stretching?  
>> 
>> I guess I don’t understand how the technology works, but it seems like an RF 
>> signal is swept that would be used to detect a dip at a pretty well defined 
>> frequency.  This dip can be used to discipline the oscillator to something 
>> like 9Ghz or a factor of what, 900+ times better than 10Mhz.  So wouldn’t 
>> that be able to get your desired 10Mhz to 10,000,000.001 or pretty much my 
>> level of measurement?  Or does is the dip not quite that precise?  If you 
>> can point me to a write-up on this I’ll go away.
>> 
>> Thanks to Gilbert for providing me with at least one rubidium oscillator 
>> that is working out of 5 though 2 others seems to stay locked for a few 
>> hours during my testing.
>> 
>> Jerry
>> ___
>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
>> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>> and follow the instructions there.
> 
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Why discipline Rubidium oscillator?

[Bob kb8tq]

Hi

There is no direct relation for an Rb to 10 MYz. Cs beam tubes are what have a 
direct relation. 
Even then, the qualifier is “under standard conditions”. They are sensitive to 
magnetic field. Rb’s
also are sensitive to magnetic field. Both can be tuned by varying the field. 
In the case of an Rb
that also takes care of a multitude of other issues.

In the case of Rb, there is a distribution of cells coming out of the 
manufacturing process. Some
are pretty close to the “right” frequency. Others are way off (as in 100’s of 
KHz or more). All of them
are capable of meeting the required specs. DDS techniques allow those cells to 
be used in a 
production part. That increases the yield and thus drops the production cost. 

Since you now magically have a DDS in the Rb, you can do all sorts of 
interesting things. If you
suddenly need a 9.99900 MHz standard …. here it is … If you need to do 
temperature compensation 
via a lookup table … it just takes a bit of testing and some code to make it 
happen. Indeed, the DDS
does also give you some issues. Without some sort of cleanup oscillator, you 
will have spurs and 
phase noise on the output.

Lots of fun ….

Bob


> On Nov 20, 2017, at 1:34 PM, Jerry Hancock  wrote:
> 
> I know this is going to sound dumb as I know many GPSDOs had rubidium 
> oscillators in them.  I can see why, in that during holdover, they would tend 
> to be more stable vs others, but given that there is a direct mathematical 
> relationship between the rubidium frequency and potentially the 10Mhz desired 
> output frequency, why do they have to be disciplined or better yet, what 
> advantage does it bring?  Also, I can see how you discipline a DOCXO with the 
> external voltage, how do you discipline a rubidium?  Pulse stretching?  
> 
> I guess I don’t understand how the technology works, but it seems like an RF 
> signal is swept that would be used to detect a dip at a pretty well defined 
> frequency.  This dip can be used to discipline the oscillator to something 
> like 9Ghz or a factor of what, 900+ times better than 10Mhz.  So wouldn’t 
> that be able to get your desired 10Mhz to 10,000,000.001 or pretty much my 
> level of measurement?  Or does is the dip not quite that precise?  If you can 
> point me to a write-up on this I’ll go away.
> 
> Thanks to Gilbert for providing me with at least one rubidium oscillator that 
> is working out of 5 though 2 others seems to stay locked for a few hours 
> during my testing.
> 
> Jerry
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

[time-nuts] Why discipline Rubidium oscillator?

[Jerry Hancock]

I know this is going to sound dumb as I know many GPSDOs had rubidium 
oscillators in them.  I can see why, in that during holdover, they would tend 
to be more stable vs others, but given that there is a direct mathematical 
relationship between the rubidium frequency and potentially the 10Mhz desired 
output frequency, why do they have to be disciplined or better yet, what 
advantage does it bring?  Also, I can see how you discipline a DOCXO with the 
external voltage, how do you discipline a rubidium?  Pulse stretching?  

I guess I don’t understand how the technology works, but it seems like an RF 
signal is swept that would be used to detect a dip at a pretty well defined 
frequency.  This dip can be used to discipline the oscillator to something like 
9Ghz or a factor of what, 900+ times better than 10Mhz.  So wouldn’t that be 
able to get your desired 10Mhz to 10,000,000.001 or pretty much my level of 
measurement?  Or does is the dip not quite that precise?  If you can point me 
to a write-up on this I’ll go away.

Thanks to Gilbert for providing me with at least one rubidium oscillator that 
is working out of 5 though 2 others seems to stay locked for a few hours during 
my testing.

Jerry
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

[time-nuts] HP5065A C-field mods and optical unit mods

[cdelect]

Warren,

Most all Rubidium standards do not have active current drive.  
The HP 5065A is the exception. However the mod I installed is not active.
The C-field coils are roughly temperature compensated as they are near
the cell oven that is regulated.
If you check out Poul-Hennings "hacking the 5065a" you will see that the
C-field coil does exhibit some temperature effect even with active
current regulation, and the stock C-field circuit also introduces some 
effects. Now these amount to a small coefficient but we are Time Nuts
here so we can do better!

My circuit gives a precise current into the coil (for a fixed temperature
of the coil), and with the active temperature stabilization I am adding
to the outside of the sealed optical unit enclosure  those effects will
be eliminated.

Cheers,

Corby

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] HP5065A C-field mods and optical unit mods

[ws at Yahoo via time-nuts]

Corby

 

Just a 1 cent thought that may not apply or be accurate.

 

C-fields are current sensitive, so if they are wound with copper wire, any
small change in their temperature, even when temperature controlled, could
have a effect much greater than 1PPM on that current when driven from a
fixed voltage thru a resistor.

Does anyone use current drive?

 

ws

*

Corby posted:

Attached is the schematic of the C-field supply.

 

Cheers,

 

Corby

 

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

[time-nuts] should be of interest

[Bert Kehren via time-nuts]

A non time nut friend did send me this link which should be of  interest
Bert Kehren
_http://www.radionet-eu.org/rda/archive/NA4-EN-SU-012-021_W.%20Schl%C3%BCter
%20Fundamental%20Station%20Wettzell.pdf_ 
(http://www.radionet-eu.org/rda/archive/NA4-EN-SU-012-021_W.%20Schlüter%20Fundamental%20Station%20Wettzell.pdf)
 
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] FE-5680A not responding to serial commands

[Bryan _]

BR


If you haven't already you may want to have a look at documentation available 
on the K04BB web site for the 5680A, may luck out and get the serial port 
working.


http://www.ko4bb.com/getsimple/index.php?id=manuals=02_GPS_Timing/FEI/FE-5680A


-=Bryan=-



From: time-nuts  on behalf of Jonas Jalling 

Sent: November 19, 2017 11:30 PM
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] FE-5680A not responding to serial commands

Hi Bryan,

I don't know, so probably not. I'll try to make a dump of the firmware, and
see if that gets me anywhare. But thank you for your input - now I know
that units exist with the serial port disabled.

BR Jonas

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 8:27 AM Bryan _  wrote:

> Did the serial communication ever work?. There is so many variations of
> the FE's that it's hard to know if it was even supported for that
> particular model or option. I have one and it has a serial port, but does
> not respond to any commands.
>
>
> -=Bryan=-
>
>
> 
> From: time-nuts  on behalf of Jonas Jalling <
> jo...@jalling.dk>
> Sent: November 19, 2017 12:20 AM
> To: time-nuts@febo.com
> Subject: [time-nuts] FE-5680A not responding to serial commands
>
> Hello all,
> I have an old FE-5680a I bought years ago, that surfaced from my storage
> boxes the other day. I thought I would experiment with disciplining it to
> my M12+t GPS. I have some problems adjusting the frequency though.
> If I put a scope on pins 5 and 7 of the DS80C323 processor, I can see the
> serial input (ie. 0x2D 0x04 0x00 0x29), but the processor never responds.
> Has anyone seen this problem before, and is there a way to fix it? Could
> the serial adjust be disabled? And if so, is there any way to enable it?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> BR Jonas
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to
> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
time-nuts Info Page - American Febo 
Enterprises
www.febo.com
time-nuts is a low volume, high SNR list for the discussion of precise time and 
frequency measurement and related topics. To see the collection of prior 
postings to ...



> time-nuts
>  Info
> Page - American Febo Enterprises<
> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts>
time-nuts Info Page - American Febo 
Enterprises
www.febo.com
time-nuts is a low volume, high SNR list for the discussion of precise time and 
frequency measurement and related topics. To see the collection of prior 
postings to ...



> www.febo.com
American Febo Enterprises
www.febo.com
Welcome to American Febo Enterprises! Welcome to American Febo Enterprises, a 
proud subsidiary of International MultiGeek. AFE is an intergalactic 
consultatorium ...



> time-nuts is a low volume, high SNR list for the discussion of precise
> time and frequency measurement and related topics. To see the collection of
> prior postings to ...
>
>
>
> and follow the instructions there.
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to
> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
time-nuts Info Page - American Febo 
Enterprises
www.febo.com
time-nuts is a low volume, high SNR list for the discussion of precise time and 
frequency measurement and related topics. To see the collection of prior 
postings to ...



> and follow the instructions there.
>
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
time-nuts Info Page - American Febo 
Enterprises
www.febo.com
time-nuts is a low volume, high SNR list for the discussion of precise time and 
frequency measurement and related topics. To see the collection of prior 
postings to ...



and follow the instructions there.
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

[time-nuts] Symmetricom X72 rubidium oscillator breakout board now avaiable

[Mark Sims]

Maybe:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Symmetricom-X72-Rubidium-Oscillator-10-32V-DC-10MHz-USED/132116702248?epid=1023910441=item1ec2c4e428:g:2p8AAOSwXYtYvKWc

I don't know if RDR Electronics still have any X72's.

There used to be a lot of X72's for sale that were pulled from something.  They 
came with an adapter board that only broke out 16 of the 26 pins.  I bought a 
couple... they had less than 1000 hours of run time on them.

My signal board has support for the SA22.c rubidium, but I need to figure out 
how to connect to that horrid connector that is in the middle of the baseplate. 
  I am also laying out an interface board for the Spectratime SRO-100 rubidium.

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Recommendation for cheap GBIP adapter for Linux

[Angus]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 20:21:13 +, you wrote:

>The Galvant adapter appears to use a very similar protocol to the Prologix,
>but I'm unsure if it's exactly compatible.
>
>There have been large numbers of HP adapters on ebay - they're generally
>thought to be clones of varying quality.
>
>http://www.galvant.ca/#!/store
>http://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/flood-of-new-agilent-82357b-gpib-usb-adaptors-on-ebay-the-real-deal/150/
>

Hi,

The commands in the Galvant one do seem to have been done to be quite
like the Prologix. I tried one of them 2 or 3 years ago because they
were temptingly cheap at the time, but could not get it working
consistently.
 
As far as I can remember, single commands and short strings would
often work for me, but longer strings and regular data like readings
every second were very unreliable. They seem to work for some folk but
not for others, which is often the story for cheap low volume ones.

In the end I gave up and bought a Prologix - which appears to be a
common end result of buying and wasting time on cheaper ones.

Angus.
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.