[time-nuts] NOT digest, I forget the subject not sure why the digest received Richard's reply and not me ? Oh well, never mind.
stanley_reynolds at yahoo.com
Tue Dec 2 00:00:31 UTC 2008
From: Bruce Griffiths <bruce.griffiths at xtra.co.nz>
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement <time-nuts at febo.com>
Sent: Monday, December 1, 2008 5:26:38 PM
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] time-nuts Digest, Vol 53, Issue 8
Guess that would be the case of too good to believe performance unless the lock was intermittent and was not recognized. Guessing that the phase comparison equipment should be fairly equal in precision and accuracy as well, maybe a rapid switch of the measuring by only one device would help the equal part if the sample and recording could be rapid enough. Otherwise some type of rotation to qualify differences in the measuring equipment. Or as I suspect most use better precision and accuracy in the testing equipment than the DUT, once you reach the upper limit of better measurement then use the N cornered hat to cull the bad ones and id the good ones.
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.
> I have several 10811's just don't know how good they are yet ...
If you have 3 or more then you could use the 3 (or N) cornered hat
technique to identify the best of them.
However this requires a significant amount of phase comparison equipment
and adequate isolation between all the OCXOs.
Its all too easy to have one or more of the oscillators injection lock
if the OCXO buffer reverse isolation is inadequate.
More information about the time-nuts