I like the tuning "slug" on that oscillator !
Tom Van Baak wrote:
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/listinf
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
I appreciate the notification of somebody who does not deliver what was
advertised. There is too much spin doctoring going on.
Joe Geller wrote:
David,
It is understandable that you are disappointed that it turns out this seller is offering the 10811 - 60111 version instead of the 10811 A model
David Kirkby wrote:
Feel free to continue to discuss it privately with me if you wish. I
have set the reply address to myself only.
I did change the "reply to" address, but the mailing list has changed
the "reply to" adress once again. One obviously can't override that
process.
--
David Kirkby
Joe Geller wrote:
David,
It is understandable that you are disappointed that it turns out this seller is offering the 10811 - 60111 version instead of the 10811 A model that you were looking for. But if you look at your question to him objectively, I think one can reasonably see that he took your
At 11:09 AM 5/7/2005, Joe Geller wrote...
>that you were looking for. But if you look at your question to him
>objectively, I think one can reasonably see that he took your question with
>regard to the output frequency.
If you look at the answer objectively , it is obvious that the seller
un
David,
It is understandable that you are disappointed that it turns out this
seller is offering the 10811 - 60111 version instead of the 10811 A model that
you were looking for. But if you look at your question to him objectively, I
think one can reasonably see that he took your questi
Just in case any of you were thinking of buying an HP 10811A, there is
someone (Ray Mahoney, callsign N4NBS) on eBay selling one right now
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7513958962
who I would definitely avoid.
I won an auction for an HP 10811A from him
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/
17 matches
Mail list logo
