Hi For something portable, the good old RBXO approach might well be worth considering.
Bob > On Jan 22, 2018, at 3:05 PM, Ronald Held <ronaldh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Magnus: > I wanted one since they were announced in 2005, AFAIR. Incorporated > into a watch was my first choice, but that price is out of range. A > portable old cell phone size version is next. > Ronald > > > What exactly motivated specifically CSAC for you? > > There might be other cheaper alternatives to your problem. > > For me CSAC solves a problem within very specific set of parameters, > where low power consumption is one of them. Depending on the actual > details of the application a TCXO might be a better choice, or even some > OCXOs. > > It's not that I want to deny you the fun of toying with CSAC, I have > three myself, but if you don't really need what it is good for, other > choices might be better. Also, the one place for such advice is for sure > this email list where a lot of experience is gathered and ready to share. > > Cheers, > Magnus > > > Bob: > OCXO and TCXO are larger then the CSAC? How much more power would > they need to get within a factor of ten to the 1.5s/1000 years? > Ronald > _______________________________________________ > 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.