From: Normand Martel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Frequency processing scheme of HP5065 vapour rubidium
standard
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:28:47 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Ulrich Bangert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
offset that changed annually
Magnus Danielson wrote:
There is frequency pulling even in Cesium beams. Only a few beams handles
the
phase error pulling by reverting the beam direction. Fountains have this
together with doppler reduction.
In the 5071, nearly every error source has been beaten into
submission. However, CBT
From: Rick Karlquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Frequency processing scheme of HP5065 vapour rubidium
standard
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 10:29:49 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Magnus Danielson wrote:
There is frequency pulling even in Cesium beams. Only a few beams
Magnus Danielson wrote:
What I have been thinking about is the possibility to electrically detune
the
microwave cavity to introduce the necessary phase shift control. The key
issue
with that would probably be how to detect the zero-phase shift in a
separate
loop not involving external
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rick K
arlquist writes:
I can also tell you (having investigated this sort of thing)
that adding varactors to the cavity to tune it is a huge can of
worms that you want to avoid if at all possible.
Apart from being a can of worms, wouldn't it also be pointless ?
But something bugs me... In both fountains and single
ion mercury standards, lasers are used to COOL DOWN
atoms...
How is it possible? Lasers are energy sources, and (at
least for me), anything that is hit by a laser will
get warm, not cold!
Thanks for your attention..
Normand Matrel
Hi folks,
me and my friend Frank (who has got his hands on two of these HP5065)
have a problem in understanding the frequency processing scheme of these
beasts.
At a first glance everything looks pretty straightforward: A 60 MHz
carrier derived from the OCXO is multiplied by 114 to get a
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ulrich Bangert writes:
But what surprises us completely is the fact that different physics
packages need DIFFERENT thumbwheel settings to generate the SAME time
scale as seen with the two devices available.
This is because rubidium vapour standards are not primary
PROTECTED]
Betreff: Re: [time-nuts] Frequency processing scheme of
HP5065 vapour rubidium standard
From: Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Frequency processing scheme of
HP5065 vapour rubidium standard
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 13:21:50 +
Message-ID: [EMAIL
Ulrich Bangert wrote:
Agreed! But you are talking about things that happen INSIDE the physics
package, don't you? Ok, let us assume that there WERE big differences in
the physics packages that need to be compensated for. In THIS case the
tunable synthesizer would indeed make sense and even
From: John Ackermann N8UR [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Frequency processing scheme of HP5065 vapour rubidium
standard
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 11:11:56 -0500
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ulrich Bangert wrote:
Agreed! But you are talking about things that happen INSIDE
Ulrich, DF6JB
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von John Ackermann N8UR
Gesendet: Montag, 6. November 2006 17:12
An: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Betreff: Re: [time-nuts] Frequency processing scheme of
HP5065
--- Ulrich Bangert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
offset that changed annually. IIRC, it was
typically something like
300x10e-10.
Agreed! And that is what the manual says its good
for!
However, the question remains why different physics
packages need
DIFFERENT thumbwheel
processing scheme of
HP5065 vapour rubidium standard
Ulrich Bangert wrote:
Agreed! But you are talking about things that happen INSIDE the
physics package, don't you? Ok, let us assume that there WERE big
differences in the physics packages that need to be
compensated
14 matches
Mail list logo
