[time-nuts] Dumb Cs beam question: mechanical shock sensitivity?

Rick Karlquist richard at karlquist.com
Thu Aug 3 16:53:56 EDT 2006


This question reminds me of the HP5062 military Cs standard
and the Navy's "hammer blow test."  The Navy required HP to
pass this test which consisted of mounting the victim, I mean
the DUT, on a platform, and then whacking the platform with
a 400 lb "hammer".  The hammer was a weight on the end of
a pendulum that was raised up and then let go.  It was supposed
to simulate firing a 16 inch naval gun, or maybe it was to
simulate a depth charge in a submarine.  (I believe the 5062's
mainly went into submarines).  I think it merely had to survive
this test, but it was OK to go out of lock momentarily!
Anyway, this test was probably one of the motivating factors in
HP discontinuing the 5062 despite Navy pleading to the contrary.


Rick Karlquist
(worked at HP after the 5062 era)





Christopher Hoover wrote:
> Should I expect a healthy Cs beam standard to lose lock if the unit gets
> a sharp (enough) mechanical shock?  I'm just asking about the general
> nature -- obviously implementations will have differing mechanisms for
> and degrees of isolation.
>
> My FTS 4050 lost lock briefly once when I was dropped another piece of
> gear I was loading above it in the same rack.  The two events were
> directly correlated.  I wasn't terribly suprised, but wasn't sure if
> that was "normal."
>
> It lost lock briefly last night, again, but for unknown reasons.  We did
> have a small'ish earthquake, so I'm told ....
>
> -ch
>
> p.s. Look out for some questions on how to deal with outliers and gaps
> in datasets for stability analysis .... I'll pursue the literature
> first; pointers to anything of particular merit would be welcomed
> kindly.
>
> _______________________________________________
> time-nuts mailing list
> time-nuts at febo.com
> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>
>





More information about the time-nuts mailing list