On 3/27/16 8:20 PM, Mark Sims wrote:
Mil-spec parts would be somewhat more reliable than commercial
parts.
Actually, that is seldom true. The main difference between mil-spec
parts and commercial parts tends to be in the post-packaging device
testing (e.g.. extended temperature / voltage range
Am Mon, 28 Mar 2016 03:20:14 +
schrieb Mark Sims :
> > Mil-spec parts would be somewhat more reliable than commercial
> > parts.
> Actually, that is seldom true. The main difference between mil-spec
> parts and commercial parts tends to be in the post-packaging device
> testing (e.g.. exte
> Mil-spec parts would be somewhat more reliable than commercial parts.
Actually, that is seldom true. The main difference between mil-spec parts and
commercial parts tends to be in the post-packaging device testing (e.g..
extended temperature / voltage range). They usually have the same guts
Titles sound about right. But I don't need them. Someone else was asking.
As I say I stumbled across them and since I don't really have a suite of
Cesiums never saved it. :-)
Thanks
Paul
WB8TSL
On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Michael Wouters
wrote:
> Dear Paul,
>
> You are probably thinking of
Hi
In the case of the Temex Rb’s in their “reliability sample”, I have hard
evidence in front of me that their MTBF numbers were *wildly* optimistic.
If their numbers were correct, it would be impossible for me to have as
many broken ones in front of me as I do.
Bob
> On Mar 27, 2016, at 7:11
Dear Paul,
You are probably thinking of one of these:
Chadsey et al “Maintenance of HP5071A frequency standards at
USNO” in Proc. 29th PTTI, p49-60 (1997)
Chadsey “An automated alarm program for HP5071A frequency
standards” in Proc. 31st PTTI, p649-655 (1999)
Brock et al “End-of-life indicators
On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 10:50:13 -0400
paul swed wrote:
> I do not have it but I stumbled into it on the internet. There was one
> paper it was military, naval observatory or NIST and it did indeed show
> failure rates of cesiums of the reference that were owned and it must have
> been 30-50 of them.
On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 10:13:32 -0400
Bob Camp wrote:
> The “typical life” numbers on the tubes in the various Cesium standards
> are fairly accurate. Most units that are well cared for “die” when the tube
> goes out and come back to life when it’s replaced. The tube life dominates
> the MTBF in thi
Taking Alan Melia's point that there aren't enough of these devices to
establish good statistics and Bob Camp's point that temperature can
cause components to fail before the physics package, I'd suggest that
there is a need to specify the thermal environment for the 15 year run.
How large was the
My Efratom M-100 has been running for about 15 years 24/7.
I have no idea if that is typical.
It was purchased as NOS for $300.
Rob
NC0B
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 27, 2016, at 9:11 AM, "Bob Camp" wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi
>
> The “typical life” numbers on the tubes in the various Cesium standards
duplication, the exception
may be the space environment but I have no experience there.
Good Luck with it
Alan
G3NYK
- Original Message -
From: "Attila Kinali"
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2016 12:53 PM
Subject: [time-nuts] Reliability of atomic clocks
Moin,
Maybe someone here c
Hi
The “typical life” numbers on the tubes in the various Cesium standards
are fairly accurate. Most units that are well cared for “die” when the tube
goes out and come back to life when it’s replaced. The tube life dominates
the MTBF in this case.
Rb’s are a device that by it’s (possibly unfort
I do not have it but I stumbled into it on the internet. There was one
paper it was military, naval observatory or NIST and it did indeed show
failure rates of cesiums of the reference that were owned and it must have
been 30-50 of them.
I remember it showed failures of units over years.
Since it d
Moin,
Maybe someone here can help me.
I am looking for data on the reliability of atomic clocks.
I.e. how often and, if possible, how they fail.
Unfortunately, if I google for reliability then all that pops up
are descriptions of the accuracy and stability of atomic clocks.
If I go for MTBF I onl
14 matches
Mail list logo