Not stable enough unfortunately. An ageing rate of a few parts in 10^12 per day is typical, which translates to 100 ns. You could be brave and model that as linear frequency drift to predict the time offset to the required 0.5 ns or so but I suspect that it could be a very frustrating exercise. We operate a large number of rubidiums and sudden changes in frequency are quite common.
Cheers Michael. On Thursday, 5 May 2016, Hal Murray <hmur...@megapathdsl.net> wrote: > > t...@leapsecond.com said: > > Any of these methods is going to be a challenge, given their 500 ps > > requirement and their $2k budget. > > How stable are surplus rubidium oscillators? > > How close could you get if you brought two of them together, compared > phase, > drove them to the site for a nights work, drove them back to the same > location and compared the phase again. > > > -- > These are my opinions. I hate spam. > > > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com <javascript:;> > 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.