[time-nuts] Oscilloquartz 3210 Cesium Standard

[Magnus Danielson]

I have one of those modules but in a Telecom Solutions wrapping.

It seems like for your purposes, at least bypassing the output synthesis 
would be a good thing.

Cheers,
Magnus

On 08/29/2014 10:06 AM, Javier Herrero wrote:
> It seems that later, they decided to shameless use the
> FTS/Datum/Symmetricom FTS-5045 module
> http://www.gigatest.net/datum/5045txt2.pdf
>
> The OSA-5585 I've has one inside, labeled Symmetricom everywere, and the
> Oscilloquartz contribution is a subrack containing the DC-input and
> AC-input power supplies, a controller that manages the FTS-5045 through
> its serial port, and some clock synthesis and distribution cards to
> provide PPS, 10MHz and 2.048MHz, with a spectral quality a lot worse
> than the output from the FTS-5045. I find the Oscilloquartz part of the
> equipment not very good nor very usefult to my purposes, to a point I'm
> thinking on to remove it completely an control/monitor directly the
> FTS-5045 with whatever thing with a serial port and a display (my
> Blackfin module, a Beaglebone o whatever similar)
>
> Regards,
>
> Javier
>
> On 29/08/2014 1:23, Magnus Danielson wrote:
>> FTS had a patent on microcontroller steered cesium, which could
>> naturally have limited the spreading time of that technology.
>>
>> Oscilloquartz at the time where more focused on the telecommunication
>> market and meeting the ITU-T G.811 PRC quality requirement, keeping
>> within +/. 1E-11 in frequency, and that is achievable with the analog
>> design, so no rush changing it.
>>
>> FTS and HP where more into time-keeping, so therefore improving the
>> design made more market sense for them.
>>
>> Anyway, that's about how I have perceived the market at the time.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Magnus
>>
>> On 08/28/2014 11:47 PM, Chris wrote:
>>> On 08/28/14 19:53, Javier Herrero wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Then it is a quite different beast to the EUDICS 3120, that they also
>>>> call OSA-3120... I note now that yours is a 3210, not 3120 :)
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Javier
>>>
>>> The 3210 looks like a much earlier design, prior to the inclusion of
>>> microprocessor control. Date codes look mid eighties, by which time
>>> companies like FTS did have microprocessor control. Maybe their later
>>> design products ran in parallel because of gov or esa contracts. In
>>> theory, the more straightforward hardware design should make it easier
>>> to keep running, tube life permitting, assuming the info can be found.
>>>
>>> Thanks for sending it anyway - it all adds to the sum of knowledge...
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.