[time-nuts] New frequency standard, Mercury better than Cesium?

jayh6 at verizon.net jayh6 at verizon.net
Tue Jul 18 13:29:43 UTC 2006


The trick is to use a tuna can instead of a soup can and coopt one of the leftover mercury atoms from the tuna  ;)

jay

>From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk at phk.freebsd.dk>
>Date: 2006/07/17 Mon PM 05:30:30 CDT
>To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement <time-nuts at febo.com>
>Subject: Re: [time-nuts] New frequency standard, Mercury better than Cesium?

>In message <20060717203222.78738.qmail at web50709.mail.yahoo.com>, Normand Martel
> writes:
>
>>They should be able.... the standard uses a single
>>mercury atom!! ;-)
>
>Which interestingly enough might make them incompatible
>with the RoHS (Reduction of Harmfull Substances) regulation
>here in EU.
>
>As far as I've understood RoHS, you can get away with trace amounts
>of heavy metals on the banned list, under a theory of environmental
>contamination, but if you include them deliberately, you're in
>violation.
>
>Fortunately metrological equipment is easy to get an excemption for :-)
>
>-- 
>Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
>phk at FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
>FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
>Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
>
>_______________________________________________
>time-nuts mailing list
>time-nuts at febo.com
>https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts





More information about the Time-nuts_lists.febo.com mailing list