[time-nuts] would an optical primary standard provide any general benefit?

Azelio Boriani azelio.boriani at screen.it
Tue Apr 3 07:49:06 UTC 2012


Yes, but nonetheless why not develop more stable primary clock sources? We
can always take care of the dissemination in the meantime and try to
develop a more precise time transfer method.

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 2:39 AM, beale <beale at bealecorner.com> wrote:

> Having read this NIST review paper by Thomas E. Parker, "The uncertainty
> in the realization and dissemination
> of the SI second from a systems point of view"
> http://tf.boulder.nist.gov/general/pdf/2564.pdf
>
> ...it seems that any potential improvement in frequency standards (Cs
> fountain -> optical clocks) will not benefit most time/frequency users,
> because existing long-range time-transfer methods (TWSTFT and GPS carrier
> phase) are still limited to at best 2E-16 for 30-day averaging, and there
> is no generally practical way to improve them currently in sight.  (Laser
> ranging of satellites being considered not generally practical). Just
> curious what people think, is this too pessimistic a view, or is it fair to
> say that having a 10x improved primary standard would not improve stability
> or accuracy for anyone outside of stabilized optical-fiber distance from
> such a standard?
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 mailing list