[time-nuts] Time nut newbie

Rex rexa at sonic.net
Tue Apr 30 21:57:20 EDT 2013


It doesn't affect the general magnitude conclusions by Bruce, but as 
long as we are making corrections, my calculator seems to think
60 * 60 * 24 * 12 = 1036800 seconds in 12 days, not 1024800.  That does 
come out to 115.7 days for 1 sec error. Maybe the 12-day number was a typo?

-Rex


On 4/30/2013 12:57 PM, Bruce Griffiths wrote:
> 12 days is 1024800 s ie just over 1 million seconds so a frequency 
> offset of 0.1ppm results in a time error of ~ 0.1s not 1s.
> 1sec error would occur in just under 116 days,
>
> Bruce
>
> Bob Camp wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> If you take a look down in the fine print on the OCXO spec, the aging 
>> rate
>> is 100 ppb / year in the first year. If you are off by 0.1 ppm (100 ppb)
>> your clock will gain a second in less than 12 days.
>>
>> Bob
>>



More information about the time-nuts mailing list