[time-nuts] HP 5372A vs. 5370A

Bob Camp lists at rtty.us
Thu Feb 10 20:49:54 UTC 2011


Hi

They all get better as time increases. 20 ps always beats 200 ps. 200 ps
always beats 2 ns. What level you do or don't need at what tau will always
be a "that depends" sort of thing. Pictic's resolution is a "that depends"
thing as well. 

The idea is to have one gizmo do the whole range of tau's from very short
times to very long times. It's tough to do that with other solutions and
have zero dead time. 

Bob 

-----Original Message-----
From: time-nuts-bounces at febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-bounces at febo.com] On
Behalf Of Ed Palmer
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 12:45 PM
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] HP 5372A vs. 5370A

I don't understand why you need something like the 537x counters for 
long-term measurement.

The 200 ps resolution of the 5372A gives you a noise floor of about 
5e-14 @ 4000 seconds.  Something like the Pictic II gives you better 
resolution at a fraction of the size, heat, noise, and power.  Even a 
Racal-Dana 1992 with it's 1 ns resolution gives you 2.5 e-13 @ 4000 
seconds and it gets better as Tau increases.

Am I missing something?

Ed

Bob Camp wrote:
> Hi
>
> The  5371 / 5372 are never going to be as popular as the 5370 in terms of
people needing support. They just aren't that common. 
>
> Getting binary dumps into one of the software packages would be very nice.
The rest of the stuff is much further down my list. Without a binary dump,
you can't do anything that runs over a long period of time. I'm not sure
what HP really wanted you to do in that case. They may have planed a PC
software package and then not followed through with it. 
>
> Bob

_______________________________________________
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.




More information about the time-nuts mailing list