[time-nuts] Worst possible error on a rubidium

[Will Matney]

David,

That's a good question, and I wouldn't be able to say, without seeing the
spec sheet on the oscillator itself.  Out of lock would be out of
tolernace, but what the maximum allowable deviation is, on the unit in
question, I wouldn't know. If it does finally lock, it should be within
tolerance, but what that tolernaces maximum deviation is, it's untelling,
without seeing some literature on it.

I did have a sheet on the one I bought, and if I can find it, I'll see what
it says.

Best,

Will

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 7/13/2011 at 10:15 PM Dr. David Kirkby wrote:

>If an old random 10 MHz Rubidium oscillator is working (i.e. powers up,
and 
>eventually locks), what is the maximum possible frequency error it could
have?
>
>Could it remained locked with an error of 1 part in 10^7, 10^8, 10^9,
10^10 etc?
>
>I assume there are physical limits which would simply stop it functioning
too 
>far from the correct frequency, but don't have much clue what they are.
>
>-- 
>A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
>Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>A: Top-posting.
>Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
>
>_______________________________________________
>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.
>
>__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
signature database 5851 (20110206) __________
>
>The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
>http://www.eset.com