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 on the surface certainly seems proper, I think it deserves closer inspection. The question really is the relationship between accuracy and stability. To be fair lets limit the discussion to singular standards, meaning specifically not externally "steered" standards. However, lets include the Rubidium without outside influence. The Cesium is not considered because it is the defined as the standard reference. The basis of my problem is in considering the Quartz or Rubidium, it seems to me that stability defines the degree of accuracy that can be obtained. Sure, you can adjust the accuracy of this singular standard, but how long is it going to stay there ? If the accuracy of the adjustment doesn't stay put, then that adjustment means little. So, the question is how do you make a stand-a-lone standard more accurate then its level of stability ? Bill....WB6BNQ _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.