If you do that and it is mu metal then you'll have to demagnetise it.
However this is easier than having to anneal it.
If you have a magnetic probe you may be able to test its effectiveness
in shielding against the earth's magnetic field.
This may be one way of checking if a mu metal case needs to be annealed
as a result of rough handling.
If you have a dead rubidium then magnetising the case isn't an issue.
Bob Camp wrote:
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 -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
