Re: [time-nuts] Question about SA.33 Rb clock

Hi > On Oct 17, 2017, at 12:37 AM, Hal Murray wrote: > > > kb...@n1k.org said: >> The gotcha is that the spur spec’s are not always met. As you might guess, >> doing testing over really wide DDS ranges is impractical. Some designs use >> cleanup loops. The gotcha then

Re: [time-nuts] Question about SA.33 Rb clock

On 10/16/17 9:37 PM, Hal Murray wrote: kb...@n1k.org said: The gotcha is that the spur spec’s are not always met. As you might guess, doing testing over really wide DDS ranges is impractical. Some designs use cleanup loops. The gotcha then becomes a spur (say at 0.053 Hz) that is inside the

Re: [time-nuts] Question about SA.33 Rb clock

kb...@n1k.org said: > The gotcha is that the spur spec’s are not always met. As you might guess, > doing testing over really wide DDS ranges is impractical. Some designs use > cleanup loops. The gotcha then becomes a spur (say at 0.053 Hz) that is > inside the cleanup loop bandwidth …. How

Re: [time-nuts] Question about SA.33 Rb clock

Hi > On Oct 15, 2017, at 12:47 PM, Hal Murray wrote: > > > kb...@n1k.org said: >> Today DDS based loops let manufacturers use a *lot* more cells than they >> could use “back in the old days”. > > I'd expect that to produce close in spurs that would be ugly in some >

Re: [time-nuts] Question about SA.33 Rb clock

kb...@n1k.org said: > Today DDS based loops let manufacturers use a *lot* more cells than they > could use “back in the old days”. I'd expect that to produce close in spurs that would be ugly in some applications. Is that info in the data sheet and/or are designers clued in? -- These

Re: [time-nuts] Question about SA.33 Rb clock

quency standards are primary standards. /tvb - Original Message - From: "Jar Sun via time-nuts" <time-nuts@febo.com> To: <time-nuts@febo.com> Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2017 8:27 PM Subject: [time-nuts] Question about SA.33 Rb clock Dear group: I have got a SA.3

Re: [time-nuts] Question about SA.33 Rb clock

that they are special or more accurate, but this is not >> the case. None of these compact low-power laser / VCSEL / CPT -based >> frequency standards are primary standards. /tvb - Original Message - >> From: "Jar Sun via time-nuts" <time-nuts@febo.com>

Re: [time-nuts] Question about SA.33 Rb clock

mpact low-power  laser / VCSEL / CPT -based frequency standards are primary standards. /tvb - Original Message - From: "Jar Sun via time-nuts" <time-nuts@febo.com> To: <time-nuts@febo.com> Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2017 8:27 PM Subject: [time-nuts] Question about SA.33

Re: [time-nuts] Question about SA.33 Rb clock

None of these compact low-power  laser / VCSEL / CPT -based frequency standards are primary standards. /tvb - Original Message - From: "Jar Sun via time-nuts" <time-nuts@febo.com> To: <time-nuts@febo.com> Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2017 8:27 PM Subject: [time-nuts]

Re: [time-nuts] Question about SA.33 Rb clock

Hi, On 10/12/2017 06:06 PM, Tom Van Baak wrote: Your use of the phrase "real cesium" may be the source of your confusion. The SA.3x uses rubidium and the SA.4x uses cesium. They are all real atoms. These modern MAC / CSAC atomic standards compete with high-end DOCXO quartz oscillators with

Re: [time-nuts] Question about SA.33 Rb clock

nuts@febo.com> Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2017 8:27 PM Subject: [time-nuts] Question about SA.33 Rb clock Dear group: I have got a SA.33 Rb module from a second hand GPS clock, at first it works well, but soon after it was damaged that beacuse I was trying to install a heat sink on it, unfortu

[time-nuts] Question about SA.33 Rb clock

Dear group:   I have got a SA.33 Rb module from a second hand GPS clock, at first it works well, but soon after it was damaged that beacuse I was trying to install a heat sink on it, unfortunately I used screws which its size too long, so maybe the screws drilled into inside Rb lamp or inside