[time-nuts] 5370B OCXO
lists at rtty.us
Fri Mar 12 12:30:05 UTC 2010
I guess the real question is what a "better" OCXO would have actually cost.
If the 60111 was a test ten, get ten sort of thing (I'm guessing it was) - was a better part simply a test 10 get 9 issue?
The claim was made that short term stability testing could be done directly in the aging racks. It's not real clear what the actual cost of an extended test / sort would have been.
On Mar 11, 2010, at 10:43 PM, John Miles wrote:
> Many if not most 5370-based measurements are based on differential timing
> between the START and STOP channels, and wouldn't benefit from a better 10
> MHz reference. If a customer did need something better, they probably
> already had a house standard to pipe in the back... and if not, HP would
> have been able to sell them one. It made more sense to keep the cost down
> by not including a high-end OCXO that would have gone unappreciated by most
> The 5370's jitter+resolution floor doesn't allow it to reach 1E-11 at t=1s
> in any event, so the -60111 wouldn't have been the limiting factor in the
> short term.
> One valid question, though, is why they bothered to put the nicer
> 10811-60109 OCXOs in the post-2120 series 5065A models, where its short-term
> performance is hosed by tying it to the rubidium reference with a ~1 Hz
> loop. Those 5065As would have been OK with a -60111, at least in the
> pre-2632 serial #s with the original integrator board. I'd be curious to
> know if they lowered the loop BW when they respun the integrator PCB.
> -- john, KE5FX
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: time-nuts-bounces at febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-bounces at febo.com]On
>> Behalf Of Bob Camp
>> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 7:11 PM
>> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
>> Subject: [time-nuts] 5370B OCXO
>> The OCXO in the 5370B is a 10811-60111. The only added spec on it
>> is a 1x10^-11 ADEV spec at 1 second. By modern standards that's
>> not a real tight spec. There are other 10811's with tighter specs
>> on them at 1 second. My guess is that it was not a real tight
>> spec for the 10811 to hit.
>> The short term would appear to contribute to the total error on
>> the counter. Why not put a better oscillator in it?
>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
>> To unsubscribe, go to
>> 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.
More information about the time-nuts