A couple of years ago I measured this one... ;-)
http://www.leapsecond.com/pages/10811-slow/
/tvb
___
time-nuts mailing list
time-nuts@febo.com
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
Folks, I hesitate to do this, but I think this topic has gone on long
enough and we're not shedding much new light. Let's give it a rest
Thanks,
John
Yr Humble Listmanager
___
time-nuts mailing list
time-nuts@febo.com
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mail
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kirkby writes:
I seriously doubt you will ever get a better and more researched
answer than:
Tom has said he has tested bad 10811A's and good 10811-60111's.
But Tom has not said (to me anyway) if the peformance of the oscillators
tes
Also, once your GPS standard project is up and running with the -60111, I'm
sure that someone on the list would be more than happy to borrow it and
compare it to their own Cs or H standard, and give you a short-term
stability plot. You can then look at the graph and see if the HP rock is
giving yo
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kirkby writes:
>> I seriously doubt you will ever get a better and more researched
>> answer than:
>>
>>>Tom has said he has tested bad 10811A's and good 10811-60111's.
>
>But Tom has not said (to me anyway) if the peformance of the oscillators
>tested is ra
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kirkby writes:
I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that there would be a higher probability
of a randomly chosen 10811A being better today than a randomly chosen
10811-60111. I guess the only way to know this is to test a sufficient
num
Unless it's going into the next Mars probe, I would just hook the thing up
and see if it's good enough for the intended application. Time (no pun
intended) to move on.
-- john KE5FX
> Richard (Rick) Karlquist (N6RK) wrote:
>
> > All 10811-6 are simply selections of one of the above.
> > Afte
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kirkby writes:
>I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that there would be a higher probability
>of a randomly chosen 10811A being better today than a randomly chosen
>10811-60111. I guess the only way to know this is to test a sufficient
>number to get staticall
Richard (Rick) Karlquist (N6RK) wrote:
All 10811-6 are simply selections of one of the above.
After a lot of time has gone by, these selections are, for the
most part, irrelevant.
The specs on the 10811A are higher than on the 10811-60111. If I
remember correctly, there are no phase noise s
, but it looks like a list of
> numbers folllows this, and not the letter A I'm converned this is
> perhaps a special, at an odd freqency, and not the standard 10MHz
> 10811A. Is there any where it actually says 10811A on the
> package? Can you give me a price to ship to the UK. Address would
10 matches
Mail list logo
