[time-nuts] Warning: HP oscillators on eBay from todoelmondo(Ray Mahoney)

David Kirkby david.kirkby at onetel.net
Mon May 9 17:37:48 EDT 2005

Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <427FD1BE.4010605 at onetel.net>, David Kirkby writes:
>>>I seriously doubt you will ever get a better and more researched
>>>answer than:
>>>>Tom has said he has tested bad 10811A's and good 10811-60111's.
>>But Tom has not said (to me anyway) if the peformance of the oscillators 
>>tested is randomly distributed.
> Now, don't be unreasonable.  I don't think even Tom has enough
> differeing 10811's to determine if this is so.

No, which is what I guessed would be the case.

Therefore without any evidence to the contry, it is probably not an 
unreasonable assumption that on average the performance of a 10811A 
today is likely to be better than that of a 10811-60111, since the 
original specification for the former was higher.

> Btw, have you seen this:
> 	http://www.leapsecond.com/museum/10811a/90027-1.pdf

Yes, and as you can see, not much is specified about the 10811-60111. No 
phase noise specifications, no gravitional specifications, no magnetic 
field specifications and only a single time domain stabilty 
specification of < 1.0 x 10^-11 at 1s. In contrast, there are much more 
detailed specs on the 10811A, and the time domain stability at 1s is 
better (I thnk it is a factor of 2, which would mean the 10811A would 
need to be < 5 x 10^-12)

David Kirkby,

Please check out http://www.g8wrb.org/
of if you live in Essex http://www.southminster-branch-line.org.uk/

More information about the time-nuts mailing list