Tom Van Baak wrote:
The seller should give you the 10811A that you
bid on and won.
That's my feeling too.
To be fair, I received the oscillator yesterday and highlighted the
issue to him today. He has already replied. His reply was
* David
* Please let met know.Have you tested the unit and
* conf
Had wrote:
David,
Take a look at this page:
http://www.febo.com/time-freq/hardware/HP10811-Specs.pdf
Had, K7MLR
Thanks, I had finally found that.
Section 6 clearly shows the performance of the 10811-60111 and comparing
it with the specs for the HP 10811A it is clear an 10811-60111 only has
to
David Kirkby wrote:
Can anyone tell me the difference between the two above oscillators? I
have the manual for the 97page manual (page 2 is upside down), but it
does not mention the latter.
However, I think I have seen a small couple of page document somewhere
which listed the 10811-60111 as ha
David,
Take a look at this
page: http://www.febo.com/time-freq/hardware/HP10811-Specs.pdf
Had, K7MLR
At 07:32 AM 4/23/2005, you wrote:
Can anyone tell me the difference between the two above oscillators? I
have the manual for the 97page manual (page 2 is upside down), but it does
not mention t
The seller should give you the 10811A that you
bid on and won.
In general there is a difference between a 10811A
and a 10811-60111. The 10811A meets all the
specs on the data sheet and the 10811-60111
has relaxed specs. These -60111 are often found
in medium performance frequency counters such
as
Hi David:
Many years ago my best oscillator was a Stanford Research SC10. I think
they have better specs than the HP and they have a large number of
options. I think all the options come from the same hardware by
changing jumpers or resistors, so you can see how they trade phase noise
for agi
Thanks for that.
It does seem the specification of the 10811-60111 is poorer than the
10811A, as the formers time domain stability at 1s is twice as bad
(10^-11) compared to that of the 10188A (5x10^-12), and just about every
other parameter is "not specified" on the 10811-60111.
It is particul
Sorry for page flipped. Attached pdf is for 10811-60111
Best regards
Hubert
DB7ME
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im
Auftrag von David Kirkby
Gesendet: Samstag, 23. April 2005 16:32
An: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Betreff:
I don't know if this message with a picture embedded will
make it through the reflector, but anyway this is the pinout
of the Isotemp I used for my own GPSDO :
73 Alberto I2PHD
<>___
time-nuts mailing list
time-nuts@febo.com
https://www.feb
Can anyone tell me the difference between the two above oscillators? I
have the manual for the 97page manual (page 2 is upside down), but it
does not mention the latter.
However, I think I have seen a small couple of page document somewhere
which listed the 10811-60111 as having no specificatio
10 matches
Mail list logo
