[time-nuts] HP10811 vs 00105 OCXO

Mark Spencer mark at alignedsolutions.com
Fri Aug 7 14:45:33 EDT 2015


Hi Luciano.  That is interesting.  Thanks for sharing this.

I also have an HP105B with the old style oscillator.  (An auction site purchase from years ago.)   Yours seems at bit better than the one I have at tau's of approx 100 seconds or so.  I'm curious if you have any data for longer tau's ?


All the best Mark Spencer


> On Aug 6, 2015, at 8:37 PM, timeok at timeok.it wrote:
> 
> 
> here the ADEV of the two oscillator. I have added the Super performance of an HP105B (old oscillator) bought in an Ham fest.
> 
> Luciano
> 
> 
> 
>> On Fri 07/08/15 03:37 , Bob Camp <kb8tq at n1k.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi
>> 
>> HP 10811’s vary over almost a 100:1 range in terms of ADEV performance
>> at short tau. The standard model is un-sealed so it has some issues
>> with humidity when it is in storage for a long time. In both the case of
>> the 10811 and the 105, their stability will improve as they are
>> on power. In the case of long term storage, they both may continue to
>> improve for more than a month.
>> 
>> All of this makes any sort of comparison between the two models a bit
>> difficult. About all you can say is that on a given day, this example of
>> one
>> was (or was not) more stable than that example of the other model.
>> 
>> Bob
>> 
>>> On Aug 6, 2015, at 5:03 AM, timeok at timeok.it wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I have done some measurement comparing two HP OCXO, the HP10811 and the
>> 105.
>>> 
>>> These two oscillator are mounted in the HP5065A rubidium Standard, the
>> 105 in the old models, the 10811 in newer, and for this purpose they are
>> selected units.
>>> 
>>> I have two HP5065A use the different oscillators. For the stability test
>> I have set the two 5065A in Open loop so the OCXO are free running .
>>> I have done the measurements using as reference a third HP5065A in
>> closed loop operation.
>>> 
>>> Here the files show the frequency and phase difference.
>>> 
>>> The 00105-6034 appear to be more stable as frequency than the 10811.
>>> 
>>> comments?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Luciano
>>> www.timeok.it [1]
>>> Message sent via Atmail Open -
>> http://atmail.org/_______________________________________________
>>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
>>> To unsubscribe, go to
>> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts [3]
>>> and follow the instructions there.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1] http://webmail.timeok.it/parse.php?redirect=http://www.timeok.it
>> [2]
>> http://webmail.timeok.it/parse.php?redirect=http://atmail.org/%26lt%3BHP
>> [3]
>> http://webmail.timeok.it/parse.php?redirect=https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/ma
>> ilman/listinfo/time-nuts
> Message sent via Atmail Open - http://atmail.org/
> <ocxo.gif>
> _______________________________________________
> 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