[time-nuts] HP5061B Versus HP5071 Cesium Line Frequencies
Donald E. Pauly
trojancowboy at gmail.com
Fri Jun 2 18:01:47 EDT 2017
https://www.febo.com/pipermail/time-nuts/2017-May/105566.html
Tell us more about the RF leakage problems in the 5061. I thought
that the 5071 used the same beam tube. How does the electricity leak
out and at what frequencies? My method costs a tenth as much and
has higher spectral purity performance to the beam tube. I admit that
I hadn't thought about the electricity leaking out. Can the leak be
plugged?
BTW these are not strictly Diophantine equations. No exact solution
is possible if C field is to be used. Can you tell us the magic
numbers?
πθ°μΩω±√·Γλ
WB0KV
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Richard (Rick) Karlquist <richard at karlquist.com>
Date: Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] HP5061B Versus HP5071 Cesium Line Frequencies
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
<time-nuts at febo.com>, "Donald E. Pauly" <trojancowboy at gmail.com>,
"rward0 at aol.com" <rward0 at aol.com>
I said no *manufacturer* does it this way. NBS is not
a manufacturer. In a one-off money-is-no-object non-portable
standard, you can make direct multiplication work. It
will not work well in a 5061, because of RF leakage
issues specific to the 5061 that are well documented.
Bolting on a different synthesizer does nothing to change that.
The decision not to use direct multiplication has nothing to
do with not being able to figure out how to synthesize the
correct frequency. Certainly by the time we did the 5071A,
we were already using DDS, and it wouldn't have been any
problem to synthesize for direct multiplication if we had
wanted to do that. You seem to be doing it the hard way
(pre DDS) involving Diophantine equations. So it's easier
to do direct multiply than it used to be, but that doesn't
necessarily mean you should do it that way.
Rick
More information about the time-nuts
mailing list