Hi If the standard *only* functions unreachable conditions, then you have no standard.
The point is that you do operate them under normal conditions, and then correct the result as required. I do not know of any primary standards that are totally un-influenced by their environment in any way. That of course doesn't mean there are none... Bob -----Original Message----- From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Harris Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 2:40 PM To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement Subject: Re: [time-nuts] One Kg Quartz Resonator Hi Bob, It seems to me that all of our current primary standards are only functional under the ideal nominal conditions. Which ones aren't? -Chuck Harris Bob Camp wrote: > Hi > > If you take the position that a primary standard is only functional if it's > under the ideal nominal conditions - you have no primary standards at all. > They all require corrections of one sort or the other. Having a system with > no standards is not a system at all... > > The practical approach is to define the ideal conditions in a way that you > can indeed correct back to them. The most common way is to take the > contribution to zero. There obviously are other approaches. Regardless of > weather you take it to zero or x.xxx the net result is the same, as long as > everybody does the same thing. > > 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. _______________________________________________ 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.