Magnus: I wanted one since they were announced in 2005, AFAIR. Incorporated into a watch was my first choice, but that price is out of range. A portable old cell phone size version is next. Ronald What exactly motivated specifically CSAC for you? There might be other cheaper alternatives to your problem. For me CSAC solves a problem within very specific set of parameters, where low power consumption is one of them. Depending on the actual details of the application a TCXO might be a better choice, or even some OCXOs. It's not that I want to deny you the fun of toying with CSAC, I have three myself, but if you don't really need what it is good for, other choices might be better. Also, the one place for such advice is for sure this email list where a lot of experience is gathered and ready to share. Cheers, Magnus Bob: OCXO and TCXO are larger then the CSAC? How much more power would they need to get within a factor of ten to the 1.5s/1000 years? Ronald

Hi For something portable, the good old RBXO approach might well be worth considering. Bob > On Jan 22, 2018, at 3:05 PM, Ronald Held <ronaldheld@gmail.com> wrote: > > Magnus: > I wanted one since they were announced in 2005, AFAIR. Incorporated > into a watch was my first choice, but that price is out of range. A > portable old cell phone size version is next. > Ronald > > > What exactly motivated specifically CSAC for you? > > There might be other cheaper alternatives to your problem. > > For me CSAC solves a problem within very specific set of parameters, > where low power consumption is one of them. Depending on the actual > details of the application a TCXO might be a better choice, or even some > OCXOs. > > It's not that I want to deny you the fun of toying with CSAC, I have > three myself, but if you don't really need what it is good for, other > choices might be better. Also, the one place for such advice is for sure > this email list where a lot of experience is gathered and ready to share. > > Cheers, > Magnus > > > Bob: > OCXO and TCXO are larger then the CSAC? How much more power would > they need to get within a factor of ten to the 1.5s/1000 years? > Ronald > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there.

On 1/22/18 12:05 PM, Ronald Held wrote: > > Bob: > OCXO and TCXO are larger then the CSAC? How much more power would > they need to get within a factor of ten to the 1.5s/1000 years? > Ronald 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)

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 > On Jan 22, 2018, at 3:49 PM, jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net> wrote: > > On 1/22/18 12:05 PM, Ronald Held wrote: > >> Bob: >> OCXO and TCXO are larger then the CSAC? How much more power would >> they need to get within a factor of ten to the 1.5s/1000 years? >> Ronald > > > 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) > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there.