Yes, but nonetheless why not develop more stable primary clock sources? We can always take care of the dissemination in the meantime and try to develop a more precise time transfer method.
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 2:39 AM, beale <[email protected]> wrote: > Having read this NIST review paper by Thomas E. Parker, "The uncertainty > in the realization and dissemination > of the SI second from a systems point of view" > http://tf.boulder.nist.gov/general/pdf/2564.pdf > > ...it seems that any potential improvement in frequency standards (Cs > fountain -> optical clocks) will not benefit most time/frequency users, > because existing long-range time-transfer methods (TWSTFT and GPS carrier > phase) are still limited to at best 2E-16 for 30-day averaging, and there > is no generally practical way to improve them currently in sight. (Laser > ranging of satellites being considered not generally practical). Just > curious what people think, is this too pessimistic a view, or is it fair to > say that having a 10x improved primary standard would not improve stability > or accuracy for anyone outside of stabilized optical-fiber distance from > such a standard? > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
