[time-nuts] (no subject)

[Didier Juges]

"I haven't fabricated a good excuse to want my own rubidium standard yet, but I'll keep working on that. :)"

Well, you need another reference that does not use the same principles to check your first reference against.

That one worked for me.

Now I am working on the next one, because "a man with two clocks..."

Didier KO4BB


------------------------ 
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless thingy while I do other things...

-----Original Message-----
From: "Mark J. Blair" <nf6x at nf6x.net>
Sender: time-nuts-bounces at febo.com
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:23:59 
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement<time-nuts at febo.com>
Reply-To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
	<time-nuts at febo.com>
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] (no subject)


On Aug 19, 2010, at 4:54 PM, Bob Camp wrote:
> Yup, the original question was "why a TBolt?"

I just joined time-nuts today, so please forgive me if I'm beating a dead horse. For me, the answer to "why a TBolt" was "it automatically calibrates itself against somebody else's well-maintained cesium beam oscillator that I didn't have to pay for", along with "(presumably) low phase-noise OCXO output", which interests me for radio-related applications. I might have chosen a different kind of reference for a different application.

I haven't fabricated a good excuse to want my own rubidium standard yet, but I'll keep working on that. :)

-- 
Mark J. Blair, NF6X <nf6x at nf6x.net>
Web page: http://www.nf6x.net/
GnuPG public key available from my web page.





_______________________________________________
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.