currently use for Time
and Freq. Whether they use L1, or L1/L2, Carrier Phase or what the current
thinking is of state of the art.
Thomas Knox
> Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 00:33:28 +0100
> From: mag...@rubidium.dyndns.org
> To: time-nuts@febo.com
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Anyone K
I am just glad this thread ran. Just downloaded the paper and its one of
those questions I have had for a while but no time to do some digging.
Great!
Regards
Paul
WB8TSL
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Magnus Danielson <
mag...@rubidium.dyndns.org> wrote:
> On 10/31/2013 12:14 AM, Jim Lux wrot
On 10/31/2013 12:14 AM, Jim Lux wrote:
> On 10/30/13 3:46 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> They have learned the hard way that they can't do that easily. They can,
>> if they add the necessary "mentioning of vendor X and their product Y
>> does in no way means an endorsement". I've seen pre
On 10/30/13 3:46 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
Hi,
They have learned the hard way that they can't do that easily. They can,
if they add the necessary "mentioning of vendor X and their product Y
does in no way means an endorsement". I've seen presentations starting
with a "non-endorsement statement
e rubidium
>> oscillators were LPRO's.
>>
>> Thomas Knox
>>
>>
>>
>>> From: j...@westmorelandengineering.com
>>> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 19:06:25 -0700
>>> To: time-nuts@febo.com
>>> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Anyone Know W
the rubidium
> oscillators were LPRO's.
>
> Thomas Knox
>
>
>
>> From: j...@westmorelandengineering.com
>> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 19:06:25 -0700
>> To: time-nuts@febo.com
>> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Anyone Know What The Models Were In This NIST Paper?
>&
rubidium oscillators
were LPRO's.
Thomas Knox
> From: j...@westmorelandengineering.com
> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 19:06:25 -0700
> To: time-nuts@febo.com
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Anyone Know What The Models Were In This NIST Paper?
>
> Bob,
>
> Yes - well, it is a li
On 10/29/13 7:06 PM, John C. Westmoreland, P.E. wrote:
Bob,
Yes - well, it is a little dated - so I would think the chance for a
competitive edge would have expired. Maybe not for models C and D but I
would certainly think so for Models A & B.
There must be some sort of technical statute of li
On 10/29/13 6:31 PM, Bob Camp wrote:
Hi
That’s always one of those “we can only tell you if you work for the US
government” sort of things. If anybody knows it’s one of those “you better not
tell” things.
or more likely..
If you put actual mfr and model in, then you have to go through a l
Bob,
Yes - well, it is a little dated - so I would think the chance for a
competitive edge would have expired. Maybe not for models C and D but I
would certainly think so for Models A & B.
There must be some sort of technical statute of limitations, correct? ;)
Regards,
John Westmoreland
O
Hi
That’s always one of those “we can only tell you if you work for the US
government” sort of things. If anybody knows it’s one of those “you better not
tell” things.
Bob
On Oct 29, 2013, at 8:40 PM, John C. Westmoreland, P.E.
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Does anyone know what Models A, B, C, and
Hello,
Does anyone know what Models A, B, C, and D were in this paper? Or maybe
had a good idea?
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=50196
Thanks!
John Westmoreland
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to htt
12 matches
Mail list logo
