Re: [time-nuts] HP10811 vs 00105 OCXO
Ulrich, If you're interested in a very good 5MHz OXCO, then I recommend the MTI Milliren model 260. (see Ebay # 271915776504). The data sheet is available.from several places, including MTI's site. The daily aging rate for it is spec'ed at 5e-11, thermal stability is 2e-10 over -30C to +70C. That's roughly 10x better than the 10811, and much cheaper. The Z3812A GPSDO units both use the MTI OXCO, so you could buy 1 or 2 of the REF-0 units and get the good OXCO performance plus all the other stuff that surrounds it. Cheers, Dave M KA2WEU--- via time-nuts wrote: How good or bad is the 10811 and which one on ebay is a better choice ? I am looking for a very goo 5 MHz crystal oscillator with documentation . Thanks, Ulrich N1UL In a message dated 8/8/2015 7:16:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kb...@n1k.org writes: Hi Ok, so John’s observation was the correct one. The data we are looking at is *not* the performance of the OCXO’s but the strange behavior of the counter at short ADEV Tau’s. Sorry for my bashing your poor 10811. Bob On Aug 8, 2015, at 12:25 PM, tim...@timeok.it wrote: Hi all, I try to ansver to all you: Luciano, how was the blue trace taken? Is this from your DMTD project? If so, it's looking promising. The green and magenta traces are definitely in the right ballpark for measurements on a 5370-class counter. At 3E-11 @ t=12s the magenta trace is optimistic but not outrageously so, while the green trace looks exactly like I'd expect for a typical 10811 measured on a 5370. The observed noise is due entirely to the counter until about t=200s. We see a glimpse of the 10811's typical ADEV at about 250 seconds, just before either drift or ADEV uncertainty causes the trace to turn upwards. A longer run would be needed to distinguish between these two situations. -- john, KE5FX Miles Design LLC r: no, all the measurements are taken using an HP53132A in frequency mode. The difference can be the gate time. Using 1 second the resolution is lower than using 2 Second that permit the max counter resolution. Hi Well an un-stated assumption of mine was that they all came from the same measurement system and that it had the same floor under all circumstances…. Bob r: all the measurements are under the same conditions except for the gate time of the counter. Hi Luciano, Can you give me the link to your ADEV posting image about 10811 vs 105 oscillators? I had it and now can't seem to find it. I wanted to look at your plots as I read John Miles' comments. Many thanks. I have two very high performing HP10811-60109 OCXO units which I got from Corby. Many thanks. Jim Robbins N1JR r: Jim, I will load soon some files on my site. The 105B I have is a fantastic exception, unfortunately it have a defect, may be a bad solder inside cause randomly a phase jump and return to the original phase trend, so all The long term ADEV are distorted by this problem I have to fix. Tom VB, i will do all the cross measurements on 10811, 00105 and rubidium I have and i will upload they but I need time to do this. Unfortunately I have only the HP53132A as TIC and my best reference are four HP5065A. I normally use the counter function because the TI function on 1 PPS have 100 time less resolution. Will be interesting doing also the Phase noise tests. I will do it. please see: http://www.timeok.it/files/time_and_frequency_house_standard_201r.pdf Luciano www.timeok.it On Sat 08/08/15 02:23 , Bob Camp kb...@n1k.org wrote: Hi Well an un-stated assumption of mine was that they all came from the same measurement system and that it had the same floor under all circumstances…. Bob On Aug 7, 2015, at 5:21 PM, John Miles wrote: Hi If that data is correct, then the 10811 you have is defective. Bob Well... some of the data is reasonable for a scenario where a counter is being used to measure OCXOs. Looking at the ADEV plot, I'd say the blue trace (HP105B vs 5065A) is the most questionable one if it came from a standalone TIC or frequency counter, because 7E-12 @ t=1s isn't achievable with most counters under most circumstances. A Wavecrest box can measure at that level if it's set up _perfectly_ to take bursts of 100+ wrap-free averages within a small fraction of the t0 interval. It might also be doable with an HP 5370A/B under similar conditions, but I'd have less confidence that the averaging isn't distorting the measurement. So while It looks like a valid measurement of an OCXO with some minor crosstalk or other external interference, that may just be a coincidence. Luciano, how was the blue trace taken? Is this from your DMTD project? If so, it's looking promising. The green and magenta traces are definitely in the right ballpark for measurements on a 5370-class counter. At 3E-11 @ t=12s the magenta trace is optimistic but not
Re: [time-nuts] HP10811 vs 00105 OCXO
Hi All 10811 OCXO’s have 10 MHz 3rd overtone SC cut crystals in them. They are the first commercial (as opposed to military) OCXO to use the SC. The target was good phase noise rather than good short term stability. They did quite well for the era in terms of phase noise. Back then and now, better short term designs exist. Also, then and now, the odd part pops out of the batch that is a bit better than the rest. It is very rare to find anybody with the ability to accurately test a good one who then decides to sell that OCXO. Bob On Aug 8, 2015, at 7:21 PM, KA2WEU--- via time-nuts time-nuts@febo.com wrote: How good or bad is the 10811 and which one on ebay is a better choice ? I am looking for a very goo 5 MHz crystal oscillator with documentation . Thanks, Ulrich N1UL In a message dated 8/8/2015 7:16:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kb...@n1k.org writes: Hi Ok, so John’s observation was the correct one. The data we are looking at is *not* the performance of the OCXO’s but the strange behavior of the counter at short ADEV Tau’s. Sorry for my bashing your poor 10811. Bob On Aug 8, 2015, at 12:25 PM, tim...@timeok.it wrote: Hi all, I try to ansver to all you: Luciano, how was the blue trace taken? Is this from your DMTD project? If so, it's looking promising. The green and magenta traces are definitely in the right ballpark for measurements on a 5370-class counter. At 3E-11 @ t=12s the magenta trace is optimistic but not outrageously so, while the green trace looks exactly like I'd expect for a typical 10811 measured on a 5370. The observed noise is due entirely to the counter until about t=200s. We see a glimpse of the 10811's typical ADEV at about 250 seconds, just before either drift or ADEV uncertainty causes the trace to turn upwards. A longer run would be needed to distinguish between these two situations. -- john, KE5FX Miles Design LLC r: no, all the measurements are taken using an HP53132A in frequency mode. The difference can be the gate time. Using 1 second the resolution is lower than using 2 Second that permit the max counter resolution. Hi Well an un-stated assumption of mine was that they all came from the same measurement system and that it had the same floor under all circumstances…. Bob r: all the measurements are under the same conditions except for the gate time of the counter. Hi Luciano, Can you give me the link to your ADEV posting image about 10811 vs 105 oscillators? I had it and now can't seem to find it. I wanted to look at your plots as I read John Miles' comments. Many thanks. I have two very high performing HP10811-60109 OCXO units which I got from Corby. Many thanks. Jim Robbins N1JR r: Jim, I will load soon some files on my site. The 105B I have is a fantastic exception, unfortunately it have a defect, may be a bad solder inside cause randomly a phase jump and return to the original phase trend, so all The long term ADEV are distorted by this problem I have to fix. Tom VB, i will do all the cross measurements on 10811, 00105 and rubidium I have and i will upload they but I need time to do this. Unfortunately I have only the HP53132A as TIC and my best reference are four HP5065A. I normally use the counter function because the TI function on 1 PPS have 100 time less resolution. Will be interesting doing also the Phase noise tests. I will do it. please see: http://www.timeok.it/files/time_and_frequency_house_standard_201r.pdf Luciano www.timeok.it On Sat 08/08/15 02:23 , Bob Camp kb...@n1k.org wrote: Hi Well an un-stated assumption of mine was that they all came from the same measurement system and that it had the same floor under all circumstances…. Bob On Aug 7, 2015, at 5:21 PM, John Miles wrote: Hi If that data is correct, then the 10811 you have is defective. Bob Well... some of the data is reasonable for a scenario where a counter is being used to measure OCXOs. Looking at the ADEV plot, I'd say the blue trace (HP105B vs 5065A) is the most questionable one if it came from a standalone TIC or frequency counter, because 7E-12 @ t=1s isn't achievable with most counters under most circumstances. A Wavecrest box can measure at that level if it's set up _perfectly_ to take bursts of 100+ wrap-free averages within a small fraction of the t0 interval. It might also be doable with an HP 5370A/B under similar conditions, but I'd have less confidence that the averaging isn't distorting the measurement. So while It looks like a valid measurement of an OCXO with some minor crosstalk or other external interference, that may just be a coincidence. Luciano, how was the blue trace taken? Is this from your DMTD project? If so, it's looking promising. The green and magenta traces are definitely in
Re: [time-nuts] HP10811 vs 00105 OCXO
Hi all, I try to ansver to all you: Luciano, how was the blue trace taken? Is this from your DMTD project? If so, it's looking promising. The green and magenta traces are definitely in the right ballpark for measurements on a 5370-class counter. At 3E-11 @ t=12s the magenta trace is optimistic but not outrageously so, while the green trace looks exactly like I'd expect for a typical 10811 measured on a 5370. The observed noise is due entirely to the counter until about t=200s. We see a glimpse of the 10811's typical ADEV at about 250 seconds, just before either drift or ADEV uncertainty causes the trace to turn upwards. A longer run would be needed to distinguish between these two situations. -- john, KE5FX Miles Design LLC r: no, all the measurements are taken using an HP53132A in frequency mode. The difference can be the gate time. Using 1 second the resolution is lower than using 2 Second that permit the max counter resolution. Hi Well an un-stated assumption of mine was that they all came from the same measurement system and that it had the same floor under all circumstances…. Bob r: all the measurements are under the same conditions except for the gate time of the counter. Hi Luciano, Can you give me the link to your ADEV posting image about 10811 vs 105 oscillators? I had it and now can't seem to find it. I wanted to look at your plots as I read John Miles' comments. Many thanks. I have two very high performing HP10811-60109 OCXO units which I got from Corby. Many thanks. Jim Robbins N1JR r: Jim, I will load soon some files on my site. The 105B I have is a fantastic exception, unfortunately it have a defect, may be a bad solder inside cause randomly a phase jump and return to the original phase trend, so all The long term ADEV are distorted by this problem I have to fix. Tom VB, i will do all the cross measurements on 10811, 00105 and rubidium I have and i will upload they but I need time to do this. Unfortunately I have only the HP53132A as TIC and my best reference are four HP5065A. I normally use the counter function because the TI function on 1 PPS have 100 time less resolution. Will be interesting doing also the Phase noise tests. I will do it. please see: http://www.timeok.it/files/time_and_frequency_house_standard_201r.pdf Luciano www.timeok.it On Sat 08/08/15 02:23 , Bob Camp kb...@n1k.org wrote: Hi Well an un-stated assumption of mine was that they all came from the same measurement system and that it had the same floor under all circumstances…. Bob On Aug 7, 2015, at 5:21 PM, John Miles wrote: Hi If that data is correct, then the 10811 you have is defective. Bob Well... some of the data is reasonable for a scenario where a counter is being used to measure OCXOs. Looking at the ADEV plot, I'd say the blue trace (HP105B vs 5065A) is the most questionable one if it came from a standalone TIC or frequency counter, because 7E-12 @ t=1s isn't achievable with most counters under most circumstances. A Wavecrest box can measure at that level if it's set up _perfectly_ to take bursts of 100+ wrap-free averages within a small fraction of the t0 interval. It might also be doable with an HP 5370A/B under similar conditions, but I'd have less confidence that the averaging isn't distorting the measurement. So while It looks like a valid measurement of an OCXO with some minor crosstalk or other external interference, that may just be a coincidence. Luciano, how was the blue trace taken? Is this from your DMTD project? If so, it's looking promising. The green and magenta traces are definitely in the right ballpark for measurements on a 5370-class counter. At 3E-11 @ t=12s the magenta trace is optimistic but not outrageously so, while the green trace looks exactly like I'd expect for a typical 10811 measured on a 5370. The observed noise is due entirely to the counter until about t=200s. We see a glimpse of the 10811's typical ADEV at about 250 seconds, just before either drift or ADEV uncertainty causes the trace to turn upwards. A longer run would be needed to distinguish between these two situations. -- john, KE5FX Miles Design LLC ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts [1] 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 [2] and follow the instructions there. Links: -- [1] http://webmail.timeok.it/parse.php?redirect=https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/ma ilman/listinfo/time-nuts[2] http://webmail.timeok.it/parse.php?redirect=https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/ma ilman/listinfo/time-nuts Message sent via Atmail Open - http://atmail.org/
Re: [time-nuts] HP10811 vs 00105 OCXO
Hi Ok, so John’s observation was the correct one. The data we are looking at is *not* the performance of the OCXO’s but the strange behavior of the counter at short ADEV Tau’s. Sorry for my bashing your poor 10811. Bob On Aug 8, 2015, at 12:25 PM, tim...@timeok.it wrote: Hi all, I try to ansver to all you: Luciano, how was the blue trace taken? Is this from your DMTD project? If so, it's looking promising. The green and magenta traces are definitely in the right ballpark for measurements on a 5370-class counter. At 3E-11 @ t=12s the magenta trace is optimistic but not outrageously so, while the green trace looks exactly like I'd expect for a typical 10811 measured on a 5370. The observed noise is due entirely to the counter until about t=200s. We see a glimpse of the 10811's typical ADEV at about 250 seconds, just before either drift or ADEV uncertainty causes the trace to turn upwards. A longer run would be needed to distinguish between these two situations. -- john, KE5FX Miles Design LLC r: no, all the measurements are taken using an HP53132A in frequency mode. The difference can be the gate time. Using 1 second the resolution is lower than using 2 Second that permit the max counter resolution. Hi Well an un-stated assumption of mine was that they all came from the same measurement system and that it had the same floor under all circumstances…. Bob r: all the measurements are under the same conditions except for the gate time of the counter. Hi Luciano, Can you give me the link to your ADEV posting image about 10811 vs 105 oscillators? I had it and now can't seem to find it. I wanted to look at your plots as I read John Miles' comments. Many thanks. I have two very high performing HP10811-60109 OCXO units which I got from Corby. Many thanks. Jim Robbins N1JR r: Jim, I will load soon some files on my site. The 105B I have is a fantastic exception, unfortunately it have a defect, may be a bad solder inside cause randomly a phase jump and return to the original phase trend, so all The long term ADEV are distorted by this problem I have to fix. Tom VB, i will do all the cross measurements on 10811, 00105 and rubidium I have and i will upload they but I need time to do this. Unfortunately I have only the HP53132A as TIC and my best reference are four HP5065A. I normally use the counter function because the TI function on 1 PPS have 100 time less resolution. Will be interesting doing also the Phase noise tests. I will do it. please see: http://www.timeok.it/files/time_and_frequency_house_standard_201r.pdf Luciano www.timeok.it On Sat 08/08/15 02:23 , Bob Camp kb...@n1k.org wrote: Hi Well an un-stated assumption of mine was that they all came from the same measurement system and that it had the same floor under all circumstances…. Bob On Aug 7, 2015, at 5:21 PM, John Miles wrote: Hi If that data is correct, then the 10811 you have is defective. Bob Well... some of the data is reasonable for a scenario where a counter is being used to measure OCXOs. Looking at the ADEV plot, I'd say the blue trace (HP105B vs 5065A) is the most questionable one if it came from a standalone TIC or frequency counter, because 7E-12 @ t=1s isn't achievable with most counters under most circumstances. A Wavecrest box can measure at that level if it's set up _perfectly_ to take bursts of 100+ wrap-free averages within a small fraction of the t0 interval. It might also be doable with an HP 5370A/B under similar conditions, but I'd have less confidence that the averaging isn't distorting the measurement. So while It looks like a valid measurement of an OCXO with some minor crosstalk or other external interference, that may just be a coincidence. Luciano, how was the blue trace taken? Is this from your DMTD project? If so, it's looking promising. The green and magenta traces are definitely in the right ballpark for measurements on a 5370-class counter. At 3E-11 @ t=12s the magenta trace is optimistic but not outrageously so, while the green trace looks exactly like I'd expect for a typical 10811 measured on a 5370. The observed noise is due entirely to the counter until about t=200s. We see a glimpse of the 10811's typical ADEV at about 250 seconds, just before either drift or ADEV uncertainty causes the trace to turn upwards. A longer run would be needed to distinguish between these two situations. -- john, KE5FX Miles Design LLC ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts [1] 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 [2] and follow the instructions
Re: [time-nuts] HP10811 vs 00105 OCXO
How good or bad is the 10811 and which one on ebay is a better choice ? I am looking for a very goo 5 MHz crystal oscillator with documentation . Thanks, Ulrich N1UL In a message dated 8/8/2015 7:16:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kb...@n1k.org writes: Hi Ok, so John’s observation was the correct one. The data we are looking at is *not* the performance of the OCXO’s but the strange behavior of the counter at short ADEV Tau’s. Sorry for my bashing your poor 10811. Bob On Aug 8, 2015, at 12:25 PM, tim...@timeok.it wrote: Hi all, I try to ansver to all you: Luciano, how was the blue trace taken? Is this from your DMTD project? If so, it's looking promising. The green and magenta traces are definitely in the right ballpark for measurements on a 5370-class counter. At 3E-11 @ t=12s the magenta trace is optimistic but not outrageously so, while the green trace looks exactly like I'd expect for a typical 10811 measured on a 5370. The observed noise is due entirely to the counter until about t=200s. We see a glimpse of the 10811's typical ADEV at about 250 seconds, just before either drift or ADEV uncertainty causes the trace to turn upwards. A longer run would be needed to distinguish between these two situations. -- john, KE5FX Miles Design LLC r: no, all the measurements are taken using an HP53132A in frequency mode. The difference can be the gate time. Using 1 second the resolution is lower than using 2 Second that permit the max counter resolution. Hi Well an un-stated assumption of mine was that they all came from the same measurement system and that it had the same floor under all circumstances…. Bob r: all the measurements are under the same conditions except for the gate time of the counter. Hi Luciano, Can you give me the link to your ADEV posting image about 10811 vs 105 oscillators? I had it and now can't seem to find it. I wanted to look at your plots as I read John Miles' comments. Many thanks. I have two very high performing HP10811-60109 OCXO units which I got from Corby. Many thanks. Jim Robbins N1JR r: Jim, I will load soon some files on my site. The 105B I have is a fantastic exception, unfortunately it have a defect, may be a bad solder inside cause randomly a phase jump and return to the original phase trend, so all The long term ADEV are distorted by this problem I have to fix. Tom VB, i will do all the cross measurements on 10811, 00105 and rubidium I have and i will upload they but I need time to do this. Unfortunately I have only the HP53132A as TIC and my best reference are four HP5065A. I normally use the counter function because the TI function on 1 PPS have 100 time less resolution. Will be interesting doing also the Phase noise tests. I will do it. please see: http://www.timeok.it/files/time_and_frequency_house_standard_201r.pdf Luciano www.timeok.it On Sat 08/08/15 02:23 , Bob Camp kb...@n1k.org wrote: Hi Well an un-stated assumption of mine was that they all came from the same measurement system and that it had the same floor under all circumstances…. Bob On Aug 7, 2015, at 5:21 PM, John Miles wrote: Hi If that data is correct, then the 10811 you have is defective. Bob Well... some of the data is reasonable for a scenario where a counter is being used to measure OCXOs. Looking at the ADEV plot, I'd say the blue trace (HP105B vs 5065A) is the most questionable one if it came from a standalone TIC or frequency counter, because 7E-12 @ t=1s isn't achievable with most counters under most circumstances. A Wavecrest box can measure at that level if it's set up _perfectly_ to take bursts of 100+ wrap-free averages within a small fraction of the t0 interval. It might also be doable with an HP 5370A/B under similar conditions, but I'd have less confidence that the averaging isn't distorting the measurement. So while It looks like a valid measurement of an OCXO with some minor crosstalk or other external interference, that may just be a coincidence. Luciano, how was the blue trace taken? Is this from your DMTD project? If so, it's looking promising. The green and magenta traces are definitely in the right ballpark for measurements on a 5370-class counter. At 3E-11 @ t=12s the magenta trace is optimistic but not outrageously so, while the green trace looks exactly like I'd expect for a typical 10811 measured on a 5370. The observed noise is due entirely to the counter until about t=200s. We see a glimpse of the 10811's typical ADEV at about 250 seconds, just before either drift or ADEV uncertainty causes the trace to turn upwards. A longer run would be needed to distinguish between these two situations. -- john, KE5FX Miles Design LLC ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
Re: [time-nuts] HP10811 vs 00105 OCXO
Hi If that data is correct, then the 10811 you have is defective. Bob Well... some of the data is reasonable for a scenario where a counter is being used to measure OCXOs. Looking at the ADEV plot, I'd say the blue trace (HP105B vs 5065A) is the most questionable one if it came from a standalone TIC or frequency counter, because 7E-12 @ t=1s isn't achievable with most counters under most circumstances. A Wavecrest box can measure at that level if it's set up _perfectly_ to take bursts of 100+ wrap-free averages within a small fraction of the t0 interval. It might also be doable with an HP 5370A/B under similar conditions, but I'd have less confidence that the averaging isn't distorting the measurement. So while It looks like a valid measurement of an OCXO with some minor crosstalk or other external interference, that may just be a coincidence. Luciano, how was the blue trace taken? Is this from your DMTD project? If so, it's looking promising. The green and magenta traces are definitely in the right ballpark for measurements on a 5370-class counter. At 3E-11 @ t=12s the magenta trace is optimistic but not outrageously so, while the green trace looks exactly like I'd expect for a typical 10811 measured on a 5370. The observed noise is due entirely to the counter until about t=200s. We see a glimpse of the 10811's typical ADEV at about 250 seconds, just before either drift or ADEV uncertainty causes the trace to turn upwards. A longer run would be needed to distinguish between these two situations. -- john, KE5FX Miles Design LLC ___ 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] HP10811 vs 00105 OCXO
Hi Well an un-stated assumption of mine was that they all came from the same measurement system and that it had the same floor under all circumstances…. Bob On Aug 7, 2015, at 5:21 PM, John Miles j...@miles.io wrote: Hi If that data is correct, then the 10811 you have is defective. Bob Well... some of the data is reasonable for a scenario where a counter is being used to measure OCXOs. Looking at the ADEV plot, I'd say the blue trace (HP105B vs 5065A) is the most questionable one if it came from a standalone TIC or frequency counter, because 7E-12 @ t=1s isn't achievable with most counters under most circumstances. A Wavecrest box can measure at that level if it's set up _perfectly_ to take bursts of 100+ wrap-free averages within a small fraction of the t0 interval. It might also be doable with an HP 5370A/B under similar conditions, but I'd have less confidence that the averaging isn't distorting the measurement. So while It looks like a valid measurement of an OCXO with some minor crosstalk or other external interference, that may just be a coincidence. Luciano, how was the blue trace taken? Is this from your DMTD project? If so, it's looking promising. The green and magenta traces are definitely in the right ballpark for measurements on a 5370-class counter. At 3E-11 @ t=12s the magenta trace is optimistic but not outrageously so, while the green trace looks exactly like I'd expect for a typical 10811 measured on a 5370. The observed noise is due entirely to the counter until about t=200s. We see a glimpse of the 10811's typical ADEV at about 250 seconds, just before either drift or ADEV uncertainty causes the trace to turn upwards. A longer run would be needed to distinguish between these two situations. -- john, KE5FX Miles Design LLC ___ 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] HP10811 vs 00105 OCXO
Hi Luciano. That is interesting. Thanks for sharing this. I also have an HP105B with the old style oscillator. (An auction site purchase from years ago.) Yours seems at bit better than the one I have at tau's of approx 100 seconds or so. I'm curious if you have any data for longer tau's ? All the best Mark Spencer On Aug 6, 2015, at 8:37 PM, tim...@timeok.it wrote: here the ADEV of the two oscillator. I have added the Super performance of an HP105B (old oscillator) bought in an Ham fest. Luciano On Fri 07/08/15 03:37 , Bob Camp kb...@n1k.org wrote: Hi HP 10811’s vary over almost a 100:1 range in terms of ADEV performance at short tau. The standard model is un-sealed so it has some issues with humidity when it is in storage for a long time. In both the case of the 10811 and the 105, their stability will improve as they are on power. In the case of long term storage, they both may continue to improve for more than a month. All of this makes any sort of comparison between the two models a bit difficult. About all you can say is that on a given day, this example of one was (or was not) more stable than that example of the other model. Bob On Aug 6, 2015, at 5:03 AM, tim...@timeok.it wrote: Hi, I have done some measurement comparing two HP OCXO, the HP10811 and the 105. These two oscillator are mounted in the HP5065A rubidium Standard, the 105 in the old models, the 10811 in newer, and for this purpose they are selected units. I have two HP5065A use the different oscillators. For the stability test I have set the two 5065A in Open loop so the OCXO are free running . I have done the measurements using as reference a third HP5065A in closed loop operation. Here the files show the frequency and phase difference. The 00105-6034 appear to be more stable as frequency than the 10811. comments? Luciano www.timeok.it [1] Message sent via Atmail Open - http://atmail.org/___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts [3] and follow the instructions there. Links: -- [1] http://webmail.timeok.it/parse.php?redirect=http://www.timeok.it [2] http://webmail.timeok.it/parse.php?redirect=http://atmail.org/%26lt%3BHP [3] http://webmail.timeok.it/parse.php?redirect=https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/ma ilman/listinfo/time-nuts Message sent via Atmail Open - http://atmail.org/ ocxo.gif ___ 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] HP10811 vs 00105 OCXO
Hi Luciano, Thanks for that plot. In general an ADEV plots shows more succinctly the differences between oscillators than the raw phase and frequency plots that you posted earlier. The jitter and wander of your phase plots give a hint, but an ADEV plot neatly summarizes all this with statistics. About the 00105 vs. 10811 -- it's nearly impossible to make solid claims about one vs. the other. Oscillators of the same make/model vary a lot. Oscillators that are 20 or 30 or 40 years old may not behave the same way they did when they left the manufacturing line. A ham fest or eBay buy adds its own special mystery, for better or worse. The SC-cut 10811 warms up quickly. But that feature is irrelevant for a frequency standard that you power up once and then leave running the rest of your life. Low daily frequency drift is important, unless you use the oscillator as part of a 5065 or 5061 or GPSDO. Then even drift rate is irrelevant. The simple answer is -- just measure it. Don't rely on the name or make or model. It may be an order of magnitude better than original spec. Or it might be an order of magnitude worse. My dream would be to solicit a hundred ADEV plots of 00105 and 10811 from all time nuts and then make an informative plot or histogram. But still even that plot would not predict the performance of a random OCXO that you pick up from a ham fest. /tvb - Original Message - From: tim...@timeok.it To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement time-nuts@febo.com Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 8:37 PM Subject: Re: [time-nuts] HP10811 vs 00105 OCXO here the ADEV of the two oscillator. I have added the Super performance of an HP105B (old oscillator) bought in an Ham fest. Luciano On Fri 07/08/15 03:37 , Bob Camp kb...@n1k.org wrote: Hi HP 10811’s vary over almost a 100:1 range in terms of ADEV performance at short tau. The standard model is un-sealed so it has some issues with humidity when it is in storage for a long time. In both the case of the 10811 and the 105, their stability will improve as they are on power. In the case of long term storage, they both may continue to improve for more than a month. All of this makes any sort of comparison between the two models a bit difficult. About all you can say is that on a given day, this example of one was (or was not) more stable than that example of the other model. Bob On Aug 6, 2015, at 5:03 AM, tim...@timeok.it wrote: Hi, I have done some measurement comparing two HP OCXO, the HP10811 and the 105. These two oscillator are mounted in the HP5065A rubidium Standard, the 105 in the old models, the 10811 in newer, and for this purpose they are selected units. I have two HP5065A use the different oscillators. For the stability test I have set the two 5065A in Open loop so the OCXO are free running . I have done the measurements using as reference a third HP5065A in closed loop operation. Here the files show the frequency and phase difference. The 00105-6034 appear to be more stable as frequency than the 10811. comments? Luciano ___ 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] HP10811 vs 00105 OCXO
Hi The outer oven in the 3801 was put there for a very specific purpose: When the 3801 was designed, they had a target specification that included a warmup from -40C. The 10811 was never designed to work at these temperatures and simply could not meet the required warmup time. The “solution” that they came up with was to put a heater around the 10811 (without modifying it internally) to get the case up to a fairly high temperature quickly. This allowed them to meet the -40C specification on their target sheet. As it turns out, it is very unclear if the 3801 ever went into the sort of environment that would expose it to that sort of low end temperature. HP published a number of papers on the 10811 and it’s successor. They go into great detail about the thermal optimization of the part and why you can easily have “to much of a good thing” and actually make the oscillator worse. Bob On Aug 7, 2015, at 3:14 AM, tim...@timeok.it wrote: Hi Corby, I agree with you that if selected, there may be many differences between objects of the same type. Unfortunately it is very difficult to know what is selected and what is not. For example I found a 10811 mounted in a Z3801A who have the temperature set-point completely wrong. I remember that TVB has done tests on a number of Z3801s and the results were very different from one to each other. In fact I would expect HP since it is bothered to put a second oven in Z3801A, had selected the oscillators but it is not. I have not yet measured the 105 Phase noise, I have a 5MHz reference is -115 and -135 dBc respectively at 1 and 10 Hz. Luciano www.timeok.it On Thu 06/08/15 20:38 , cdel...@juno.com wrote: Luciano, I have found that selected 10811 units will offer significantly better short term stability as a stand alone or open loop oscillator over the 105 style oscillator. (Mid parts in 10-13th from 1 to 100 Seconds) However with the 5065A locked the performance will be driven by the loop and both styles will give similar performance. Cheers, Corby ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts [1] and follow the instructions there. Links: -- [1] http://webmail.timeok.it/parse.php?redirect=https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/ma ilman/listinfo/time-nuts Message sent via Atmail Open - http://atmail.org/ ___ 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] HP10811 vs 00105 OCXO
In message 55454.1438931...@timeok.it, tim...@timeok.it writes: For example I found a 10811 mounted in a Z3801A who have the temperature set-point completely wrong. The turn-over temperature can shift rather dramatically if the X-tal is subjected to large mechanical shocks. This is very relevant for 2nd-hand equipment, and doubly so if it has been through the E-waste circuit via China. -- 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] HP10811 vs 00105 OCXO
Hi If that data is correct, then the 10811 you have is defective. Bob On Aug 6, 2015, at 11:37 PM, tim...@timeok.it wrote: here the ADEV of the two oscillator. I have added the Super performance of an HP105B (old oscillator) bought in an Ham fest. Luciano On Fri 07/08/15 03:37 , Bob Camp kb...@n1k.org wrote: Hi HP 10811’s vary over almost a 100:1 range in terms of ADEV performance at short tau. The standard model is un-sealed so it has some issues with humidity when it is in storage for a long time. In both the case of the 10811 and the 105, their stability will improve as they are on power. In the case of long term storage, they both may continue to improve for more than a month. All of this makes any sort of comparison between the two models a bit difficult. About all you can say is that on a given day, this example of one was (or was not) more stable than that example of the other model. Bob On Aug 6, 2015, at 5:03 AM, tim...@timeok.it wrote: Hi, I have done some measurement comparing two HP OCXO, the HP10811 and the 105. These two oscillator are mounted in the HP5065A rubidium Standard, the 105 in the old models, the 10811 in newer, and for this purpose they are selected units. I have two HP5065A use the different oscillators. For the stability test I have set the two 5065A in Open loop so the OCXO are free running . I have done the measurements using as reference a third HP5065A in closed loop operation. Here the files show the frequency and phase difference. The 00105-6034 appear to be more stable as frequency than the 10811. comments? Luciano www.timeok.it [1] Message sent via Atmail Open - http://atmail.org/___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts [3] and follow the instructions there. Links: -- [1] http://webmail.timeok.it/parse.php?redirect=http://www.timeok.it [2] http://webmail.timeok.it/parse.php?redirect=http://atmail.org/%26lt%3BHP [3] http://webmail.timeok.it/parse.php?redirect=https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/ma ilman/listinfo/time-nuts Message sent via Atmail Open - http://atmail.org/ocxo.gif___ 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] HP10811 vs 00105 OCXO
Hi Corby, I agree with you that if selected, there may be many differences between objects of the same type. Unfortunately it is very difficult to know what is selected and what is not. For example I found a 10811 mounted in a Z3801A who have the temperature set-point completely wrong. I remember that TVB has done tests on a number of Z3801s and the results were very different from one to each other. In fact I would expect HP since it is bothered to put a second oven in Z3801A, had selected the oscillators but it is not. I have not yet measured the 105 Phase noise, I have a 5MHz reference is -115 and -135 dBc respectively at 1 and 10 Hz. Luciano www.timeok.it On Thu 06/08/15 20:38 , cdel...@juno.com wrote: Luciano, I have found that selected 10811 units will offer significantly better short term stability as a stand alone or open loop oscillator over the 105 style oscillator. (Mid parts in 10-13th from 1 to 100 Seconds) However with the 5065A locked the performance will be driven by the loop and both styles will give similar performance. Cheers, Corby ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts [1] and follow the instructions there. Links: -- [1] http://webmail.timeok.it/parse.php?redirect=https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/ma ilman/listinfo/time-nuts Message sent via Atmail Open - http://atmail.org/ ___ 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] HP10811 vs 00105 OCXO
here the ADEV of the two oscillator. I have added the Super performance of an HP105B (old oscillator) bought in an Ham fest. Luciano On Fri 07/08/15 03:37 , Bob Camp kb...@n1k.org wrote: Hi HP 10811’s vary over almost a 100:1 range in terms of ADEV performance at short tau. The standard model is un-sealed so it has some issues with humidity when it is in storage for a long time. In both the case of the 10811 and the 105, their stability will improve as they are on power. In the case of long term storage, they both may continue to improve for more than a month. All of this makes any sort of comparison between the two models a bit difficult. About all you can say is that on a given day, this example of one was (or was not) more stable than that example of the other model. Bob On Aug 6, 2015, at 5:03 AM, tim...@timeok.it wrote: Hi, I have done some measurement comparing two HP OCXO, the HP10811 and the 105. These two oscillator are mounted in the HP5065A rubidium Standard, the 105 in the old models, the 10811 in newer, and for this purpose they are selected units. I have two HP5065A use the different oscillators. For the stability test I have set the two 5065A in Open loop so the OCXO are free running . I have done the measurements using as reference a third HP5065A in closed loop operation. Here the files show the frequency and phase difference. The 00105-6034 appear to be more stable as frequency than the 10811. comments? Luciano www.timeok.it [1] Message sent via Atmail Open - http://atmail.org/___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts [3] and follow the instructions there. Links: -- [1] http://webmail.timeok.it/parse.php?redirect=http://www.timeok.it [2] http://webmail.timeok.it/parse.php?redirect=http://atmail.org/%26lt%3BHP [3] http://webmail.timeok.it/parse.php?redirect=https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/ma ilman/listinfo/time-nuts Message sent via Atmail Open - http://atmail.org/___ 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] HP10811 vs 00105 OCXO
Luciano, I have found that selected 10811 units will offer significantly better short term stability as a stand alone or open loop oscillator over the 105 style oscillator. (Mid parts in 10-13th from 1 to 100 Seconds) However with the 5065A locked the performance will be driven by the loop and both styles will give similar performance. 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] HP10811 vs 00105 OCXO
Hi HP 10811’s vary over almost a 100:1 range in terms of ADEV performance at short tau. The standard model is un-sealed so it has some issues with humidity when it is in storage for a long time. In both the case of the 10811 and the 105, their stability will improve as they are on power. In the case of long term storage, they both may continue to improve for more than a month. All of this makes any sort of comparison between the two models a bit difficult. About all you can say is that on a given day, this example of one was (or was not) more stable than that example of the other model. Bob On Aug 6, 2015, at 5:03 AM, tim...@timeok.it wrote: Hi, I have done some measurement comparing two HP OCXO, the HP10811 and the 105. These two oscillator are mounted in the HP5065A rubidium Standard, the 105 in the old models, the 10811 in newer, and for this purpose they are selected units. I have two HP5065A use the different oscillators. For the stability test I have set the two 5065A in Open loop so the OCXO are free running . I have done the measurements using as reference a third HP5065A in closed loop operation. Here the files show the frequency and phase difference. The 00105-6034 appear to be more stable as frequency than the 10811. comments? Luciano www.timeok.it Message sent via Atmail Open - http://atmail.org/HP 10811 00105 vs HP5065A.gifHP 00105 6034 vs HP5065A.gif___ 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.
