[time-nuts] [Fwd: Re: Racal 1992]

Steve Rooke sar10538 at gmail.com
Fri Aug 28 00:02:42 UTC 2009


Hi Ed,

I agree with you now that I have looked at it and only assumed that it
was a typo by Racal, IE. missing out the per deg C but it could be
interpreted as you say and that would give it superior temp stability
as compared with the 04B.

The 04E I have is in a a shiny mirror finish sealed case with the
doubler board on the underside. The 04B is in a lightweight aluminium
can that is not sealed and you can see the foam insulation up inside
of it. There seems to be no protection moisture absorption. If you
compared the two side by side you would immediately pick the 04E as
being the better ocxo just by the construction, based upon the idea
that if someone has put this much engineering into it's construction
it must have been designed to perform better. Perhaps a poor way to
judge the performance of the item but you understand what I mean. So
when I compared the specs of the two ocxos and missed the '/ C', I
assumed that the 04B appeared to offer better performance.

The two different pdfs which contain details of the 04E both show the
temp stability as <=7 x 10^-9 over the range 0C to 50C which does
translate to <=1.4 x 10^-10 / C as you suggest. Well spotted, time to
get my eyes checked :-)

Cheers,
Steve

2009/8/28 Ed Palmer <ed_palmer at sasktel.net>:
> Hi Steve,
>
> I don't know if this is a typo, but one of the copies of the 1991/1992
> manual lists the 04E temperature performance as "<= 7 x 10e-9 over the range
> of 0C to 50C".  i.e. not per degree C.  That would be the same as "<=1.4 e
> -10 per degree C".
>
> Could that explain the apparent contradiction of superior construction and
> inferior temperature performance?  By the way, do you have any details on
> the superior construction?
>
> Ed
>
> Steve Rooke wrote:
>>
>> The output of all oscillators is 10MHz, 04B an 04E have doublers
>> connected to the 5MHz ocxo (04A? I only have the B and E versions).
>>
>> Part # 04A 11-1710
>> Frequency: 10MHz
>> Aging Rate: 3 x 10^-9 / day averaged over 10 days after 3 months
>> continuous operation.
>> Temperature Stability: +-3 x 10^-9 / C averaged over range 0 to +45C
>> (operable to +50C).
>> Warm Up: Typically +-1 x 10^-7 within 6 minutes.
>>
>> Part # 04B 11-1711
>> Frequency: 10MHz
>> Aging Rate: 5 x 10^-10 / day averaged over 10 days after 3 months
>> continuous operation.
>> Temperature Stability: +-6 x 10^-10 / C averaged over range 0 to +45C
>> (operable to +50C).
>> Warm Up: Typically +-1 x 10^-7 within 20 minutes.
>>
>> Part # 04E 404386
>> Frequency: 10MHz
>> Aging Rate: <=5 x 10^-10 / day averaged over 10 days.
>> Temperature Stability: <=7 x 10^-9 / C averaged over range 0 to +50C.
>> Line Voltage Stability: <=5 x 10^-10 two minutes after a 10% line
>> voltage change.
>>
>> The 04E option is from a later series of the 1992 and has a superior
>> construction than the 04B but the specs show it has an inferior
>> temperature stability. I have various pdfs collected over time if
>> anyone wants them, PM me.
>>
>> 73,
>> Steve
>>
>>
>> 2009/8/28 Ed Palmer <ed_palmer at sasktel.net>:
>>
>>>
>>> As far as I can tell, all the 1991/1992 oscillators are 5 MHz.  They all
>>> have a frequency doubler board attached to the bottom of the oscillator.
>>>  Some are labelled as 5 MHz, some are labelled as 10 MHz.  But they all
>>> interface to the counter at 10 MHz.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>> iovane at inwind.it wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think this series is not the one used on 1992, but on racal receivers
>>>> and exciters. I have some, and they look different. They have a 5 MHz
>>>> output, while the 04E is rated at 10 MHz, even if the crystal is cut for
>>>> 5
>>>> MHz.
>>>>
>>>> Antonio I8IOV
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Alan,
>>>>>
>>>>> Small attachments seem to be okay.  Let's find out! :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't realize that there was a whole family of 9400 series
>>>>> oscillators.  Unfortunately, your sheet doesn't include the part
>>>>> numbers
>>>>> that the 1991/1992 documentation includes although there are some
>>>>> family
>>>>> similarities.  Still, it's good info to have.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Ed
>>>>>
>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ed off list as I suspect the list wont accept attachments
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best wishes
>>>>>> Alan G3NYK
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: "Ed Palmer" To: "Discussion of precise time and frequency
>>>>>> measurement"
>>>>>> <time-nuts at febo.com>
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 8:01 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Racal 1992
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Alan,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have the same info, but it's collected from multiple sources.  I
>>>>>>> haven't seen all of it in one official source.  I'd like to see it
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> I'm sure others would as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alan Melia wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Ed I dont know whther it would be of interest but i have a page
>>>>>>>> from a cat
>>>>>>>>  with the comparative specs for those OXCOs
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Alan G3NYK
>>>>>>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to
> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>



-- 
Steve Rooke - ZL3TUV & G8KVD
A man with one clock knows what time it is;
A man with two clocks is never quite sure.



More information about the time-nuts mailing list