[time-nuts] Reliability of atomic clocks

Bob Camp kb8tq at n1k.org
Sun Mar 27 20:07:58 EDT 2016


Hi

In the case of the Temex Rb’s in their “reliability sample”, I have hard
evidence in front of me that their MTBF numbers were *wildly* optimistic. 
If their numbers were correct, it would be impossible for me to have as
many broken ones in front of me as I do. 

Bob

> On Mar 27, 2016, at 7:11 PM, Attila Kinali <attila at kinali.ch> wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 10:13:32 -0400
> Bob Camp <kb8tq at n1k.org> wrote:
> 
>> The “typical life” numbers on the tubes in the various Cesium standards
>> are fairly accurate. Most units that are well cared for “die” when the tube
>> goes out and come back to life when it’s replaced. The tube life dominates
>> the MTBF in this case. 
> 
> Lifetime is only one variable I am interested in. I suspect that most
> of the standards have a much longer lifetime than their MTBF between
> intermittent faults. E.g. Chirstopher Ekstrom reported at FSM8 that their
> newly build Rb fountains show a frequency jump once in a while. After a
> restart of the fountain it's back to normal. 
> 
> 
> 			Attila Kinali
> 
> -- 
> Reading can seriously damage your ignorance.
> 		-- 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 mailing list