[time-nuts] GSP clock stabilitiy, Rb vs Cs
Tom Van Baak (lab)
tvb at leapsecond.com
Sat May 4 15:36:20 EDT 2013
Rule of thumb: quartz is best short term, Rb or H-maser mid-term, and Cs by far the best long-term.
For GPS clocks the long-term doesn't matter that much since each space clock is monitored and updated against the GPS master clock(s) on the ground.
On May 4, 2013, at 11:40 AM, Attila Kinali <attila at kinali.ch> wrote:
> Bruce recently mentioned , where Fig. 2 shows that the Cs clocks
> of the old II and IIA birds are less stable than the Rb clocks of the
> newer birds. This struck me as odd and i tried to find out why
> a Cs beam had worse stability than a Rb vabor cell. The only paper comparing
> both clocks that i found was  which shows in Fig. 2 that the Cs clocks
> are less stable even at very small taus. But the only mention of a property
> that is worse for the Cs than for the Rb mentioned is that the Rb's are
> temperature stabilized while the Cs is not. But i would expect the temperature
> effect to be significant from a couple 100s upward, not down to 1s.
> Can anyone shed some light on why the GPS Cs beams have a worse stability
> than the Rb vapor clocks?
> Attila Kinali
>  "GPS clocks in space: Current performance and plans for the future",
> by Dass, Freed, Petzinger, Rajan, 2002
>  "Atomic frequency standards for the GPS IIF satelites",
> by Emmer, Watts, 1997
> The people on 4chan are like brilliant psychologists
> who also happen to be insane and gross.
> -- unknown
> 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