[time-nuts] CW12-TIM vs M12M and the world

[Azelio Boriani]

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
>  environment,
> not measurements of the module with all the digital  control noise and
> spurs
> etc added..
>
> bye,
> Said
>
>
> 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
> number
> 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
> problem.
>
> Ed
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>