>> ADEV is a good measure because you can make a stable standard
>> more accurate if you need to, but you cannot make an accurate
>> standard more stable.
>>
>> snip
>
> Tom,
>
> I am having a bit of a problem with your statement above. While it is a nice
> catchy phrase and on the surface certa
; To: time-nuts@febo.com
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] time-nuts Digest, Vol 43, Issue 35
>
> Pete,
>
> That's my point.
>
> Tom has plotted Allan Variance. I have plotted frequency accuracy.
>
> I get similar Allan Variance results to Tom. But if I just
>
Tom Van Baak wrote:
>
> snip
>
> ADEV is a good measure because you can make a stable standard
> more accurate if you need to, but you cannot make an accurate
> standard more stable.
>
> snip
>
Tom,
I am having a bit of a problem with your statement above. While it is a nice
catchy phrase and o
"Martyn Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom has plotted Allan Variance. I have plotted frequency accuracy.
>
> I get similar Allan Variance results to Tom. But if I just measure the
> accuracy, e.g peak to peak frequency variations, rubidium's out- perform
> OXCO's even when both are discip
Martyn,
I have used a PM6681 with HP105B reference to look at:
1. FS700 (OXCO option) as a "typical" modest quality OXCO
2. An FRS-C Rb as a "low cost" Rb device
Both measured devices were either undisciplined or awaiting
the next application of new EFC; thus I limited the observation
times to 2
Pete,
That's my point.
Tom has plotted Allan Variance. I have plotted frequency accuracy.
I get similar Allan Variance results to Tom. But if I just measure the
accuracy, e.g peak to peak frequency variations, rubidium's out- perform
OXCO's even when both are disciplined to GPS.
I hope I'm no
