[time-nuts] Re: HP atomic clocks . The cesium tubes in them are no longer any good, {External}
Bob kb8tq
kb8tq at n1k.org
Tue Oct 11 20:13:17 UTC 2022
Hi
One caution to anybody heading down this rabbit hole …..
HP made a series of instruments. Modules from an “A†version may not all
work in a “B†version ( but some will …). Bits and pieces from a 5060 might
work in a 5061, but not everything will. If you are collecting, best to decide
on a model and grab a couple of same / same units.
There seem to be a pretty good range of “spare boards†out there. They may
or may not all be 100% functional. Most of the parts on the boards are fairly
easy to dig up and replace. Yes, there are a few exceptions ….
In a modern 5071, the high performance tube will run for about 6 to 7 years
( full time ). At the end of life the output will become noisy and then the unit
eventually will fail to lock ( maybe a few months later). The “standard†tube
has a lifespan that is much longer.
One can do this or that to get an old tube running. One that’s working when
you turn things off, may or may not come back to life a few months later
when you turn things back on again.
None of this is to in any way suggest you don’t get in to this. It’s fun and you
will learn a lot about how a Cs standard works. The only point is that getting
one running and keeping it running can become a fairly involved project.
Bob
> On Oct 11, 2022, at 12:16 PM, Jim Muehlberg via time-nuts <time-nuts at lists.febo.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Aiden,
>
> I've just come into possession of a 5061A here at work. It's was on it's way to salvage but I dragged it into my office to add my ever increasing pile of "stuff I might need".
>
> In any event, I'd like the detail on how you resurrected the tube. Mine has a serial number indicating 1991 manufacture. Not sure where we got this beast. If we used it here at the observatory, I'm sure it was on until it died. Could have been 10-20 years!
>
> Ion pump current is off scale.
>
> I'm not a certifiable time nut, but I am getting the fever!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jim Muehlberg
>
> On 2022-10-11 2:17 AM, Aiden Gibson via time-nuts wrote:
>> Hi all, first time replying!
>>
>> Absolutely right about leaving them running on standby, however there is a transistor-based "interlock" which will cut power to the tube if a given ion pump current is exceeded.
>>
>> I recently brought a 5061A back to life by removing the beam tube and running the ion pump overnight with a benchtop HV supply.
>>
>> If they end up being beyond saving, they're still worth hanging onto for their fantastic OXCOs!
>>
>> Aiden Gibson
>> ajg0063 at auburn.edu
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Greg Maxwell via time-nuts<time-nuts at lists.febo.com>
>> Date: 10/11/22 00:40 (GMT-05:00)
>> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement<time-nuts at lists.febo.com>
>> Cc: Lester Veenstra<m0ycm at veenstras.com>, Greg Maxwell<gmaxwell at gmail.com>
>> Subject: [time-nuts] Re: HP atomic clocks . The cesium tubes in them are no longer any good,
>>
>> Sometimes "dead" tubes will come back to life if you leave the
>> instrument running in standby for a week so that the ion pump has time
>> to pull the pressure back down.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 2:58 PM Lester Veenstra via time-nuts
>> <time-nuts at lists.febo.com> wrote:
>>> Wrong email subject on original post, Apologies
>>>
>>> Lester B Veenstra K1YCM MØYCM W8YCM 6Y6Y
>>> lester at veenstras.com
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>
>>>
>>> Any suggestions on how to make use of this offer from a local ham?
>>> - - - - - -
>>> "There are four HP atomic clocks sitting in the back room at the University. The cesium tubes in them are no longer any good, and we no longer have the unused spare cesium tube, but it was bad anyway. The clocks do contain a stabilized 5 MHz crystal oscillator which was locked to the cesium tube when they were working.
>>>
>>> I am pretty sure I can get one or two of these clocks for you. "
>>>
>>> - - - - - -
>>> I hate to decline an offer of HP equipment.
>>>
>>> Does anyone (any company) offer new replacement tubes?
>>>
>>> Lester B Veenstra K1YCM MØYCM W8YCM 6Y6Y
>>> lester at veenstras.com
>>>
>>> 452 Stable Ln (HC84 RFD USPS Mail)
>>> Keyser WV 26726
>>>
>>> GPS: 39.336826 N 78.982287 W (Google)
>>> GPS: 39.33682 N 78.9823741 W (GPSDO)
>>>
>>>
>>> Telephones:
>>> Home: +1-304-289-6057
>>> US cell +1-304-790-9192
>>> Jamaica cell: +1-876-456-8898
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: time-nuts [mailto:time-nuts-bounces at lists.febo.com] On Behalf Of Bob kb8tq
>>> Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2021 6:39 PM
>>> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
>>> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] U-blox teaser
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Feb 27, 2021, at 11:18 AM, Dana Whitlow<k8yumdoober at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Bob.
>>>>
>>>> It seems to me that, depending on the positions of sats visible to one's GPS
>>>> antenna and the spatial distribution of free electron density in the
>>>> ionosphere,
>>>> the ionospheric contribution to position errors could sometimes largely
>>>> cancel.
>>>> But that observation may (or may not) reflect strongly on one's ability to
>>>> get
>>>> accurate absolute time from GPS on "average" days.
>>>>
>>>> During my Arecibo Observatory days we used NIST's TMAS service to keep
>>>> our H-maser-based station clock synced with UTC. Our user community
>>>> (mainly VLBI and pulsar timing people) seemed pretty satisfied with +/-
>>>> 100ns
>>>> accuracy, so I tried to do better by keeping things well within +/- 50 ns
>>>> during
>>>> my reign. IIRC, NIST was claiming that TMAS could produce results mostly
>>>> within about +/- 20 ns.
>>>>
>>>> To be honest I'm baffled by how time transfer much better than that could
>>>> be achieved in practice.
>>> One way (mentioned about a month back on the list) is a two way transfer
>>> via satellite. The “delay is equal in both directions†assumption is pretty good
>>> in this case. Once you have that as a baseline, you can measure the performance
>>> of other approaches.
>>>
>>> One of *many* starting points to rumble down this rabbit hole:
>>>
>>> https://www.nist.gov/pml/time-and-frequency-division/time-services/common-view-gps-time-transfer <https://www.nist.gov/pml/time-and-frequency-division/time-services/common-view-gps-time-transfer>
>>>
>>> I would suggest starting with David Allan’s paper (referenced in the link above) as a
>>> pretty good starting point.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>>> Regarding Q3, yes I'm aware that *some* GPS receivers do the estimation of
>>>> ionospheric delay. What I was asking was: Do any of the relatively
>>>> inexpensive
>>>> receivers to which we time-nuts have access do this? Here I'm speaking of
>>>> those being sold for no more than a few hundred USD.
>>>>
>>>> Dana
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 9:08 AM Bob kb8tq<kb8tq at n1k.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2021, at 9:41 AM, Dana Whitlow<k8yumdoober at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've long understood that ionospheric delays and variations thereof lead
>>>>> to
>>>>>> *position*
>>>>>> uncertainties in GPS navigation receivers, to the tune of perhaps 10m
>>>>>> (2DRMS IIRC).,
>>>>>> and that these are said to constitute the single largest GPS error
>>>>> source.
>>>>>> Q1: Would this not imply timing errors of comparable magnitude (10's of
>>>>>> nsec)
>>>>>> for a single band GPS?
>>>>> Once all the signals “hit†the antenna, the delays are mostly common mode.
>>>>> Instead of showing up as a position error, they show up as an error in the
>>>>> time estimate. Since time is one of the things you estimate in the
>>>>> solution
>>>>> (along with X,Y, and Z) it get’s it’s own independent solution.
>>>>>> Q2: Why have I not seen this issue raised in connection with the present
>>>>>> discussion
>>>>>> about achievable absolute timing accuracy?
>>>>> GPS time transfer is often done to the sub-ns level. There are a number of
>>>>> papers on this.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Q3: Do any of the "modern" timing GPS receivers available to civilians do
>>>>>> dual-band
>>>>>> reception in a way that includes estimation of (and correction for)
>>>>>> said delays and
>>>>>> their variations? I know that Garmin, for one, is now selling L1/L5
>>>>>> handheld GPS
>>>>>> receivers (GPSMAP66sr and GPSMAP65s), but I've seen no indication
>>>>>> that these
>>>>>> units make any attempt at doing such corrections.
>>>>> Yes, some receivers do an estimate of ionospheric delay based on the
>>>>> variation of that delay with frequency. This does not help with
>>>>> tropospheric
>>>>> delay or all of the various “common mode†issues we have been talking
>>>>> about.
>>>>> It is also unclear how the “unknown†timing variation between the bands
>>>>> due to the antenna impacts these solutions…..
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dana
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 7:43 AM Bob kb8tq<kb8tq at n1k.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The same 20 or so ns delay in a saw would also apply to the
>>>>>>> saw (or tight filter) in some timing antennas. It also would apply
>>>>>>> to the saw(s) in some modules. Even if the tolerance is “onlyâ€
>>>>>>> a couple ns on each of them, you *could* have 3 or more in the
>>>>>>> chain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lots of numbers to crunch to get to 5 ns “absoluteâ€. One could go
>>>>>>> grab a GPS simulator and start poking. First step would be to find
>>>>>>> a simulator that is spec’d for a < 5 ns tolerance on the PPS into
>>>>>>> GPS out. I do believe that rules out the eBay marvels that some
>>>>>>> of us have lying around …..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Simpler answer would be a quick “clock trip†with your car full
>>>>>>> of 5071’s …… hour drive over to NIST and then back home.
>>>>>>> That sounds practical for most of us :) :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2021, at 9:29 PM, John Ackermann N8UR<jra at febo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A while ago I tried doing a decidedly non-anechoic measurement with a
>>>>>>> VNA exciter going to a 1500 MHz ground plane and the receiver connected
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> the antenna (with a known delay cable) and I got a similar result, but
>>>>>>> there was enough noise that I didn't think I could nail it down to
>>>>> within
>>>>>>> 10 ns.
>>>>>>>> I've also measured GPS antenna splitters and they tend to have 20-ish
>>>>> ns
>>>>>>> delays, mainly due to the SAW filters. I did surgery on an HP splitter
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> remove the filters so it could be used for L1 and L2 and that dropped
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> delay down to only 1 or 2 ns.
>>>>>>>> So there's definitely lots of stuff to calibrate if you want to get
>>>>>>> accurate time transfer.
>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/26/21 8:02 PM, Michael Wouters wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Typical L1 antenna delays range from 20 to 70 ns.
>>>>>>>>> I know of only one antenna for which a delay is given by the vendor
>>>>> and
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> technique used was just to measure the electronic delay ie by
>>>>> injecting
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> signal into the circuit. To do it properly, you need a setup in a
>>>>>>> microwave
>>>>>>>>> anechoic chamber with transmitting antenna etc. The practical
>>>>> difference
>>>>>>>>> may be small though, 1 or 2 ns ( sample of one antenna!).
>>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 at 11:42 am, John Ackermann N8UR<jra at febo.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> They're claiming "even better than" 5 ns for relative time, which
>>>>> given
>>>>>>>>>> the 4 ns jitter seems at least sort-of reasonable. But until someone
>>>>>>>>>> shows me otherwise, I'm still thinking that getting better than 25 ns
>>>>>>>>>> absolute accuracy is a pretty good day's work.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/21 5:26 PM, Bob kb8tq wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I can’t think of many antennas (multi band or single band) that
>>>>> claim
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> know their
>>>>>>>>>>> delay to < 5 ns. Simply having a *differential* delay spec of < 5 ns
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> quite good.
>>>>>>>>>>> Same thing with delay ripple, you see specs out to around 15 ns on a
>>>>>>> lot
>>>>>>>>>> of antennas.
>>>>>>>>>>> None of this is getting you to the actual total delay of the
>>>>> antenna.
>>>>>>>>>> It’s a pretty good
>>>>>>>>>>> bet that number is a bit larger than either of these.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Some of the ripple probably comes out in the standard modeling. I’m
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> sure that
>>>>>>>>>>> the differential delay is taken out that way. Total delay, not taken
>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>> in any obvious
>>>>>>>>>>> fashion ( at least that I can see). If the F9 has a built in antenna
>>>>>>>>>> database, that’s not
>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned in the doc’s. Any benefit from the corrections would have
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> be part of
>>>>>>>>>>> post processing.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, that’s not the same as talking about the F9 it’s self doing X
>>>>> ns,
>>>>>>>>>> but it would be part
>>>>>>>>>>> of any practical system trying to get close to 5 ns absolute
>>>>> accuracy.
>>>>>>>>>>> 5 ns *relative* accuracy between two F9’s? I probably could buy that
>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>> the appropriate
>>>>>>>>>>> one sigma / on a clear day / with the wind in the right direction
>>>>> sort
>>>>>>>>>> of qualifiers are
>>>>>>>>>>> attached.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bob
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2021, at 4:27 PM, John Ackermann N8UR<jra at febo.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's interesting that they talk about the F9 receivers offering 5
>>>>> ns
>>>>>>>>>> absolute time accuracy. Does anyone know of tests confirming that,
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> what sort of care was required in the setup to get there?
>>>>>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/21 9:34 AM, Robert LaJeunesse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> FWIW. No detailed content, and a rather quick read. "Five key
>>>>> trends
>>>>>>>>>> in GPS".
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.u-blox.com/en/blogs/insights/five-key-trends-gps
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time-nuts mailing list --time-nuts at lists.febo.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, go to
>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and follow the instructions there.
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> time-nuts mailing list --time-nuts at lists.febo.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, go to
>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> and follow the instructions there.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> time-nuts mailing list --time-nuts at lists.febo.com
>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, go to
>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
>>>>>>>>>>> and follow the instructions there.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> time-nuts mailing list --time-nuts at lists.febo.com
>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, go to
>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
>>>>>>>>>> and follow the instructions there.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> time-nuts mailing list --time-nuts at lists.febo.com
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, go to
>>>>>>> http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
>>>>>>>>> and follow the instructions there.
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> time-nuts mailing list --time-nuts at lists.febo.com
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, go to
>>>>>>> http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
>>>>>>>> and follow the instructions there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> time-nuts mailing list --time-nuts at lists.febo.com
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, go to
>>>>>>> http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
>>>>>>> and follow the instructions there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> time-nuts mailing list --time-nuts at lists.febo.com
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, go to
>>>>> http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
>>>>>> and follow the instructions there.
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> time-nuts mailing list --time-nuts at lists.febo.com
>>>>> To unsubscribe, go to
>>>>> http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
>>>>> and follow the instructions there.
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> time-nuts mailing list --time-nuts at lists.febo.com
>>>> To unsubscribe, go tohttp://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
>>>> and follow the instructions there.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> time-nuts mailing list --time-nuts at lists.febo.com
>>> To unsubscribe, go tohttp://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
>>> and follow the instructions there.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> time-nuts mailing list --time-nuts at lists.febo.com
>>> To unsubscribe send an email totime-nuts-leave at lists.febo.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> time-nuts mailing list --time-nuts at lists.febo.com
>> To unsubscribe send an email totime-nuts-leave at lists.febo.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> time-nuts mailing list --time-nuts at lists.febo.com
>> To unsubscribe send an email totime-nuts-leave at lists.febo.com
> --
>
> Jim Muehlberg
> Senior Engineer
>
> National Radio Astronomy Observatory
> ngVLA Local Oscillator Lead
>
> 1180 Boxwood Estates Rd B-111
> Charlottesville, VA 22903-4602
> P 434.296.0270
> C 434.422.2017
> _______________________________________________
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at lists.febo.com
> To unsubscribe send an email to time-nuts-leave at lists.febo.com
More information about the Time-nuts_lists.febo.com
mailing list