[time-nuts] More Z3801/Tbolt comparisons
stanw1le at verizon.net
Fri Sep 4 17:27:21 UTC 2009
If I see the rack mounting ears on a piece of test equipment I assume
that it was rack mounted
and acoustically sheltered from the user. I assess my bid to include a
new fan, usually 30-50$.
Yes, rack mounted test equipment was usually from a fixed location, and
has no "road rash".
Roy Phillips wrote:
> I must say that much of what you have stated is right, I have a 53131A
> counter and the basic time-base is a joke, but agreed, we mostly use a
> common external reference with our instruments.
> There are some exceptions, as I am finding with a very recently
> purchased HP 8657A Sig. Gen. that has the option 001 oven oscillator.
> This is a 1998 production (made in the US), the TCXO would seem to be
> a very stable device with coarse and fine adjustment - after running
> for 48 hours its holding 10 Mhz to ^10. In fact it would seem to be
> somewhat better than the TCXO in my Marconi 2024 Sig. Gen. - - hence
> my singing the praises of HP.
> The large number of Racal 199# on the UK market in recent times are I
> would suggest, ex UK military issue and as portable instruments have
> probably had a rough life, and have frequently been stored for ten
> years in somewhat poor environments. I would suggest that buying
> equipment that has come from a commercial origin, and has been part of
> a rack test set-up, have been better cared for and sometimes have had
> very little use. What do you others think about this theory ?
> ----- Original Message ----- From: <GandalfG8 at aol.com>
> To: <time-nuts at febo.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 12:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] More Z3801/Tbolt comparisons
>> In a message dated 04/09/2009 11:18:07 GMT Daylight Time,
>> phill.r1 at btinternet.com writes:
>> Racal 19## Counters are something else - - I got rid of
>> mine some years back, not only the ongoing problems with the
>> key-pad, but
>> don't think they put much cost into the oven osc. Perhaps you should
>> consider moving on to an HP or other quality counter, "you deserve it"
>> Even the best counters can sometimes suffer from poor internal
>> The basic onboard oscillator in the HP53132A for example has no
>> use whatsoever, other than to demonstrate that the counter is
>> but I suspect most, if not all, list members will generally be
>> counters with external references anyway
>> Whilst I wouldn't even consider swapping my 53132A for a 199x I must
>> be a
>> glutton for punishment as I've just bought another 1991 after also
>> my previous one some time ago.
>> Aside from the reported key pad problems, which haven't affected me
>> so far,
>> and the lesser resolution, it's a good solid workhorse and, something
>> to be sneezed at, this one in very good condition cost me at least
>> 80% less
>> than I'd expect to pay for a similar condition 53132A:-)
>> Earlier 19xx counters also strike me as being underrated these days.
>> Although it's lacking in resolution for most of my current needs I've
>> got a 1905 I bought new in the late 70s/early 80s and that has
>> served me
>> very well as a general purpose counter.
>> I'd suggest that too as an excellent workhorse and more than adequate
>> such things as transmitter or receiver adjustment etc and, at the
>> prices the 1904 and 1905 often seem to fetch on Ebay, they can be
>> quite a
>> 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
> and follow the instructions there.
More information about the time-nuts