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

[jayh6 at verizon.net]

In addition to the other points made, there is also theoretical calculations. The cesium fountain travels at a known dispersion of speeds (source of error) as well as known potential error in the tuning methods, so it's possible to estimate that the new design will have a lower error without actually having something to compare it to.




>From: Hal Murray <hmurray at suespammers.org>
>Date: 2006/07/16 Sun PM 12:28:19 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?

>From the horses mouth:
>
>  http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/mercury_atomic_clock.htm
>
>
>This brings up a question I've been meaning to ask for a while.
>
>How do you tell how good your best clock is?  I can figure out how good a 
>not-great clock is by comparing it to a better one.  But what if there isn't 
>a better one?
>
>
>-- 
>The suespammers.org mail server is located in California.  So are all my
>other mailboxes.  Please do not send unsolicited bulk e-mail or unsolicited
>commercial e-mail to my suespammers.org address or any of my other addresses.
>These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's.  I hate spam.
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>time-nuts mailing list
>time-nuts at febo.com
>https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts