[time-nuts] RE CSAC Project(was CSAC purchase)

Bob kb8tq kb8tq at n1k.org
Tue Jan 23 15:56:19 EST 2018


The original RbXO was not a whole lot bigger than the Rb. The CSAC
is a *lot* smaller than the Rb’s of that era. The TCXO’s and OCXO’s today
are a lot smaller as well. I’d bet you could do it in < 2X the volume of the
CSAC with a pretty good OCXO and < 1.2X the volume with a precision TCXO.


> On Jan 23, 2018, at 3:36 PM, Ronald Held <ronaldheld at gmail.com> wrote:
> Bob:
>  What is you idea of portable in terms of size and mass for RbXO?
>            Ronald
> Jim
>   I suppose I am try to do "better' and my TCXO watches which at best
> run around a second/year.
>    OCXO and TCXO are both available smaller than the CSAC (particularly
> tcxo).  I'm using a vectron EX-421 OCXO and it's about 1cm on a side,
> the OX205 is about 1" square and maybe 0.60" tall.
> TCXOs are available in "cellphone" form factors (e.g. tiny SMT packages)
> Bob:
>  Long term, maybe a year, sounds like a reasonable goal. Maybe I am
> just chasing the next zero, if I have the metaphor correct?
>        Ronald
> Hi
> I’m guessing there was a question to me that somehow got lost in the world of
> ones and zeros ….
> My comment was in terms of temperature stability. The CSAC has a temp stability
> specification of +/-4x10^-10 over -10 to +70C. There are TCXO’s that
> will get below
> 5x10^-9 over that range and use far less power. There are OCXO’s that will get
> to better temperature stability numbers over that range.  Neither one
> will do the long
> term aging that a Rb will.
> Bob
> _______________________________________________
> 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