It is perhaps wise to remind ourselves at this point that the designers' approach was "good enough" whereas the typical time-nut's approach is "as good as it can possibly be."
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Rick Karlquist <rich...@karlquist.com>wrote: > Bob Camp wrote: > the story to remember that sort of detail. > > > > I've never seen any frequency vs temperature data on the "double oven" > > 10811's that shows they are significantly better than a normal part. HP > > apparently never published any data. They also never used the approach > > again, despite it's being pretty cheap to build (added parts cost). > > Looking > > at the design, it likely isn't a very low gradient device... > > The whole 10811 double oven effort was in the "expediency" category. > It was done by people who knew little about oven design and > didn't have time to learn. Out of curiosity I kept tabs on > the design, and what I saw made me cringe. There was an absurd wrapping > of coax and flex circuits to try to reduce conductive heat leaks. I guess > they blundered their way to some kind of a design that worked good enough > to ship product. It is not much of a proof or disproof of the 10811 > double oven concept. As they say, it is what is it. > > Rick Karlquist N6RK > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.