[time-nuts] 35601A as stand-in for 11848A ?

[Bruce Griffiths]

John Miles wrote:
> While that makes sense as an optimization step, I think it's important not
> to send him on an endless hunt for a few extra dBc/Hz' worth of accuracy
> when he's missing 30 or 40.  He can get to -160 dBc/Hz with only the
> 1980s-era guidelines in the HP and Wenzel app note, which are relatively
> simple (if still error-prone when executed manually).
>
> -- john, KE5FX
>
>   
Such a calibration standard is also useful as a quick check to see if
its phase noise  can be seen at the appropriate level above the noise floor.
If not there's a serious problem, if it can be seen then there may be
just a calculation error.

Bruce