Hi Bob, That's a good point and not nit picking. While my particular HP 5334A counter (sans 1.3 GHz channel C option) only measures with this kind of resolution at lower frequencies, I will be using the source for my Fluke 6060B (instead of the 5334A's output as I do now) which can produce a 1050 MHz signal, and of course any future test equipment needs. So yeah, I suppose I'd appreciate having a 1 ppb accuracy now that I've thought about it. Thanks.
Russ On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:45 PM, <time-nuts-requ...@febo.com> wrote: > Message: 8 > Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 14:48:36 -0500 > From: "Bob Camp" <li...@rtty.us> > To: "'Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement'" > <time-nuts@febo.com> > Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Least costly 10 MHz reference solution > Message-ID: <f3cc4b394995429a86320f617f42d...@vectron.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > Hi > > Not to pick nits, but 7 decimal places at what input frequency? Seven > places > is 10 ppb at 10 MHz. If the input was 100 MHz, it would be 1 ppb. > > The distinction is significant, since it crosses a boundary. At 10 ppb a > free running Rb is fine with no adjustments. At 1 ppb, some adjustment > might > be needed. > > You might also want a standard that's 5X better than the expected result. > That would get you into the 2 to 0.2 ppb range. > > Lots of fiddly little details... > > Bob > _______________________________________________ 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.