[time-nuts] CW12-TIM vs M12M and the world
azelio.boriani at screen.it
Fri Mar 30 19:57:27 UTC 2012
Actually I don't have a good reference (Z3815A): I'm still preparing my
first disciplined Rb and have 2 Fluke PM6681s. I'm waiting for my SR620, it
should be on its way to Italy right now. I have 2 TBolts but not yet turned
on. What kind of reference have you used?
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 8:10 PM, <SAIDJACK at aol.com> wrote:
> Hi Ed,
> no problem. It's an issue when some companies claim 2ns, when it's really
> 5ns. Or show phase noise plots that seem to be measurements of just the
> oscillator removed from the board and measured in a clean-room
> not measurements of the module with all the digital control noise and
> etc added..
> In a message dated 3/30/2012 10:29:32 Pacific Daylight Time,
> ed_palmer at sasktel.net writes:
> Hi Said,
> On 3/30/2012 10:53 AM, Said Jackson wrote:
> > Hello Ed, Azelio,
> > We should also compare the same parameters. Sawtooth error of the m12+
> of +/-25ns is not its standard deviation, it's max/min. Compare that
> to your 30ns max/min measurement on the 5372a.
> Yes, you're right. Thanks for the clarification.
> > Standard deviation of the m12+ is around 2ns with correction. That needs
> to be compared to the 5ns you measure on the 5372a as that is the best
> performance you will get from the CW12. Yes the uncorrected 1pps of the
> m12 is
> worse, but it is designed to be used with correction. So in the end the
> m12m still performs better than the CW12.
> That's why I suggested to the OP that if the Commsync II uses sawtooth
> correction the CW12 might not improve his performance. The limited
> command set you mentioned in your other message is another potential
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to
> and follow the instructions there.
More information about the time-nuts