RE CSAC Project(was CSAC purchase)
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
Hi
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.
Bob
On Jan 23, 2018, at 3:36 PM, Ronald Held ronaldheld@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@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
On 1/23/18 12:36 PM, Ronald Held 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.
1 second/year is quite good - about 30 ppb. It's a bit tricky (like all
things time-nutty) - the "aging" on a TCXO could be that good - but the
instantaneous frequency control might not be that good. 1ppm is pretty
vanilla for a TCXO over a fairly wide temperature range, so 30 ppb at
"constant skin temp" (say, 5 C range) is probably reasonable.
I've got some test data here for some fancy TCXOs intended for space
with a spec of 2ppm aging first year and then 1ppm/year after that. The
actual aging in the first year was 0.08 ppm, at 70C. Some of the other
oscillators in the lot were 0.02ppm, 0.05ppm.
So, I think the spec here is "covers all the things that can go wrong",
but by cherry picking, you could do better.
(or, our system design could tolerate several ppm aging over years, and
"run of the mill" for Vectron was actually a lot better)
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@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
Bob::
Good to keep in mind before I decide what to do.
Ronsld
Hi
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.
Bob
On 1/23/18, Ronald Held ronaldheld@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