[time-nuts] Warning: HP oscillators on eBay from todoelmondo(Ray Mahoney)

[David Kirkby]

Richard (Rick) Karlquist (N6RK) wrote:

> All 10811-6XXXX are simply selections of one of the above.
> After a lot of time has gone by, these selections are, for the
> most part, irrelevant.   

The specs on the 10811A are higher than on the 10811-60111. If I 
remember correctly, there are no phase noise specs at all on the 
10811-60111, and the stability is only specified at 1s and is twice as 
poor as the 10811A. (I'm going from memory).

Are you simply saying that as these are all old components, any 
oscillator that was a higher spec 20 years ago has no higher probability 
of being good today than one that was less good 20 years ago?

Tom has said he has tested bad 10811A's and good 10811-60111's.

I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that there would be a higher probability 
of a randomly chosen 10811A being better today than a randomly chosen 
10811-60111. I guess the only way to know this is to test a sufficient 
number to get statically valid data - something that I doubt few would 
have sufficient oscillators to be able to do, and even fewer could be 
bothered to do.

-- 
David Kirkby,
G8WRB

Please check out http://www.g8wrb.org/
of if you live in Essex http://www.southminster-branch-line.org.uk/