[time-nuts] Rb vs.Crystal OCXO
magnus at rubidium.dyndns.org
Fri Apr 25 22:44:33 UTC 2014
On 04/25/2014 10:30 PM, Tom Van Baak wrote:
>> Hi Everyone,
>> I'm newer to this forum but I really enjoy reading the discussions. I have
>> a pretty basic question.
>> I'm wondering why one would chose an Rb Oscillator over a traditional OCXO?
>> It does not immediately appear there is a phase noise advantage in the Rb..
> Welcome to time-nuts. Good question.
> In some applications the exceptional long-term frequency accuracy and stability you get with Rb is more important than the better phase noise, smaller size, lower power, better short-term stability, longer lifetime, or cheaper price that you get with an OCXO.
> When you buy a new OCXO, it might be accurate to 4 or 5 or 6 digits, out-of-the-box. You have to mechanically (screw) or electronically (EFC) calibrate it to get closer. If you want, say, 9 digits of accuracy, then you may have to re-calibrate it every day or at least once a week.
> When you buy a new Rb, it might be accurate to 9 or 10 or 11 digits, out-of-the-box. If you want, say, 9 digits of accuracy, then you may have to calibrate it every couple of years.
Size, weight and cost may also be issues.
In todays age of modernization, a well-sized OCXO or rubidium isn't an
option, and well, smaller OCXOs exist while rubidiums starts to become
really scarse below a certain volume, and when the volume come downs
further, the CSAC is the only atomic reference and then you only see
OCXO and TCXOs.
Cost-wise some high-performance OCXOs gives the rubidiums a match
performance-wise (even if they need a bit more trimming) but not
price-wise or even volume-wise.
Them some telecom rubidiums just isn't very good at phase-noise, but
have fair stability for the size and cost.
In the end, there is no one choice which always fits, it *really*
depends on what you need it for, and the requirements, then it plays
itself out as you look through the options.
More information about the Time-nuts_lists.febo.com