[time-nuts] 5370B OCXO

[paul swed]

Well at least today its a very key reality. Maybe not in the 80s.
But I work for a large company that has 10s of thousands of parts and its a
very real drive to remove different parts for more commonality.
I would bet indeed business drove the position

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Bob Camp <lists at rtty.us> wrote:

> Hi
>
> Tough to believe that HP worried a lot about SKU inflation back when they
> did the 5370 :)....
>
> I'm assuming that the 5370 was a Santa Clara design. That would put the
> counter designers down the hall from the oscillator factory. Unlikely that
> there was a communications gap about what could or could not be done.
>
> You may well be correct though. Setting up and managing another part is the
> most likely reason why not to add a couple more tests.
>
> Bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: time-nuts-bounces at febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-bounces at febo.com] On
> Behalf Of paul swed
> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 8:51 AM
> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] 5370B OCXO
>
> If I understand this thread correctly.
> I would speculate it was simply a business choice. 1 less part type to
> manage.
>
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 7:30 AM, Bob Camp <lists at rtty.us> wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > I guess the real question is what a "better" OCXO would have actually
> cost.
> >
> > If the 60111 was a test ten, get ten sort of thing (I'm guessing it was)
> -
> > was a better part simply a test 10 get 9 issue?
> >
> > The claim was made that short term stability testing could be done
> directly
> > in the aging racks. It's not real clear what the actual cost of an
> extended
> > test / sort would have been.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
> > On Mar 11, 2010, at 10:43 PM, John Miles wrote:
> >
> > > Many if not most 5370-based measurements are based on differential
> timing
> > > between the START and STOP channels, and wouldn't benefit from a better
> > 10
> > > MHz reference.  If a customer did need something better, they probably
> > > already had a house standard to pipe in the back... and if not, HP
> would
> > > have been able to sell them one.  It made more sense to keep the cost
> > down
> > > by not including a high-end OCXO that would have gone unappreciated by
> > most
> > > users.
> > >
> > > The 5370's jitter+resolution floor doesn't allow it to reach 1E-11 at
> > t=1s
> > > in any event, so the -60111 wouldn't have been the limiting factor in
> the
> > > short term.
> > >
> > > One valid question, though, is why they bothered to put the nicer
> > > 10811-60109 OCXOs in the post-2120 series 5065A models, where its
> > short-term
> > > performance is hosed by tying it to the rubidium reference with a ~1 Hz
> > > loop.  Those 5065As would have been OK with a -60111, at least in the
> > > pre-2632 serial #s with the original integrator board.  I'd be curious
> to
> > > know if they lowered the loop BW when they respun the integrator PCB.
> > >
> > > -- john, KE5FX
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: time-nuts-bounces at febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-bounces at febo.com
> ]On
> > >> Behalf Of Bob Camp
> > >> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 7:11 PM
> > >> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
> > >> Subject: [time-nuts] 5370B OCXO
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Hi
> > >>
> > >> The OCXO in the 5370B is a 10811-60111. The only added spec on it
> > >> is a 1x10^-11 ADEV spec at 1 second. By modern standards that's
> > >> not a real tight spec. There are other 10811's with tighter specs
> > >> on them at 1 second. My guess is that it was not a real tight
> > >> spec for the 10811 to hit.
> > >>
> > >> The short term would appear to contribute to the total error on
> > >> the counter. Why not put a better oscillator in it?
> > >>
> > >> Bob
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> 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.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>