Hi

I'd check the case with a magnet, but I'm not real sure that it would not do 
something permanent.

Bob

On Dec 24, 2009, at 9:09 PM, Bruce Griffiths wrote:

> Yes, dont start drilling or punching extra holes in the case as some have 
> done, unless you are sure the case isn't mu metal or similar.
> 
> Optical interrogation of the resonance using lasers would make it much easier 
> to separate the electronics from the absorption cell, it would also allow the 
> rubidium lamp to be dispensed with.
> However this method can be expensive and it has its own problems to solve.
> 
> Bruce
> 
> Bob Camp wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>> I certainly agree that, say potting the circuit board, would be a lot easier 
>> than some of the stuff we have been talking about.
>> 
>> My main concern about tearing up the unit is impacting the magnetic 
>> shielding. I assume that the outer enclosure forms part of the magnetic 
>> shield (at least that's what the data sheets say ...).
>> 
>> Bob
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 24, 2009, at 7:51 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
>> 
>>   
>>> Bob Camp wrote:
>>>     
>>>> Hi
>>>> The original intent was to simply take an existing "cheap" rubidium and do 
>>>> simple things to it. Tearing it into pieces and redesigning parts of it 
>>>> was not anything I originally contemplated. The tight integration of the 
>>>> physics package to the electronics would make this a fairly involved 
>>>> process.
>>>>       
>>> Well, the main point with that was that while passive temperature stability 
>>> craze have been raving high here, and into more and more expensive and 
>>> elaborate propositions, relative simple changes (not without its 
>>> challenges) would change the equation (amount of heat to cool of) quite 
>>> noticeably. If money was no object, building no-compromise/prisoners 
>>> temperature stabilization scehemes around used commercial rubidiums should 
>>> not be the optimum way to go. Building a Rubidum or Cesium fointain would 
>>> probably be way better use of the money. Quite a different project thought.
>>> 
>>> Maybe we need to get back to doable levels, and also consider what changes 
>>> Rb frequency, why and what can we do to avoid it.
>>> 
>>> I have been dipping my nose into the literature, to refresh myself on the 
>>> complex interactions. Lamp intensity in itself is a fashinating topic, 
>>> while the filtering cells temperature to intensity dependence is another 
>>> little complex field of its own and that (as I suspected) intensity too 
>>> pulls the frequency. Oh, and after a quick glaze, I found that the 
>>> necessary side-peaks needed for servo of C-field exists for Rb-87, so it 
>>> can be done similar to that of Cesium.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Magnus
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected]
>>> To unsubscribe, go to 
>>> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>>> and follow the instructions there.
>>> 
>>>     
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected]
>> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>> and follow the instructions there.
>> 
>>   
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
> 


_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Reply via email to