Hi Poul-Henning, > They don't have a "correct" frequency, only a very stable frequency. > > The actual resonance frequency of a rubidium standard depends > amongst other things on the partial pressures inside the > physics package.
We are well aware of these facts! But if THAT were the reason to correct for with different thumbwheel settings would not EVERY rubidium standard in the world desperately need this kind of correction feature? Both my FRK-L and my LPRO need only C-field correction to get the nominal 10.0000000 MHz out of it. Or has HP not been able to build the physics packages more 'repeatable'? Cheers Ulrich > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Poul-Henning Kamp > Gesendet: Montag, 6. November 2006 14:22 > An: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement > Betreff: Re: [time-nuts] Frequency processing scheme of > HP5065 vapourrubidium standard > > > 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 standards. > > They don't have a "correct" frequency, only a very stable frequency. > > The actual resonance frequency of a rubidium standard depends > amongst other things on the partial pressures inside the > physics package. > > -- > Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 > FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe > Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by > incompetence. > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list > time-nuts@febo.com > https://www.febo.com/cgi-> bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list time-nuts@febo.com https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
