[time-nuts] 10811 foam enclosure
William H. Fite
omniryx at gmail.com
Mon Jan 10 19:04:20 UTC 2011
It is perhaps wise to remind ourselves at this point that the designers'
approach was "good enough" whereas the typical time-nut's approach is "as
good as it can possibly be."
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Rick Karlquist <richard at karlquist.com>wrote:
> Bob Camp wrote:
> the story to remember that sort of detail.
> > I've never seen any frequency vs temperature data on the "double oven"
> > 10811's that shows they are significantly better than a normal part. HP
> > apparently never published any data. They also never used the approach
> > again, despite it's being pretty cheap to build (added parts cost).
> > Looking
> > at the design, it likely isn't a very low gradient device...
> The whole 10811 double oven effort was in the "expediency" category.
> It was done by people who knew little about oven design and
> didn't have time to learn. Out of curiosity I kept tabs on
> the design, and what I saw made me cringe. There was an absurd wrapping
> of coax and flex circuits to try to reduce conductive heat leaks. I guess
> they blundered their way to some kind of a design that worked good enough
> to ship product. It is not much of a proof or disproof of the 10811
> double oven concept. As they say, it is what is it.
> Rick Karlquist N6RK
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to
> and follow the instructions there.
More information about the time-nuts