[time-nuts] HP10811 vs 00105 OCXO

Bob Camp kb8tq at n1k.org
Thu Aug 6 21:37:04 EDT 2015


HP 10811’s vary over almost a 100:1 range in terms of ADEV performance at short tau. The standard model is un-sealed so it has some issues 
with humidity when it is in storage for a long time. In both the case of the 10811 and the 105, their stability will improve as they are 
on power. In the case of long term storage, they both may continue to improve for more than a month. 

All of this makes any sort of comparison between the two models a bit difficult. About all you can say is that on a given day, this example of one
was (or was not) more stable than that example of the other model. 


> On Aug 6, 2015, at 5:03 AM, timeok at timeok.it wrote:
> Hi,
> I have done some measurement comparing  two HP OCXO, the HP10811 and the 105.
> These two oscillator are mounted in the HP5065A rubidium Standard, the 105 in the old models, the 10811 in newer, and for this purpose they are selected units.
> I have two HP5065A use the different oscillators. For the stability test I have set the two 5065A in Open loop so the OCXO are free running .
> I have done the measurements using as reference a third HP5065A in closed loop operation.
> Here the files show the frequency and phase difference.
> The 00105-6034 appear to be more stable as frequency than the 10811.
> comments?
> Luciano
> www.timeok.it
> Message sent via Atmail Open - http://atmail.org/<HP 10811  00105 vs HP5065A.gif><HP 00105 6034 vs HP5065A.gif>_______________________________________________
> 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