[time-nuts] Worst possible error on a rubidium

[Dr. David Kirkby]

On 07/13/11 11:27 PM, Will Matney wrote:
> David,
>
> Below is a link to the datasheet on the FEI 5680A. I hope it will work with
> those %20 in the link. If not, I think there simply blank spaces, or /FEI -
> 5680A.pdf
>
> http://www.gillam-fei.be/products/pdf/others/rubidium/FEI%20-%205680A.pdf
>
> Best,
>
> Will

Will,

thank you for the data sheet and also the other link you gave:

http://www.freqelec.com/pdf/rfs_12pg.pdf

Looking at that, the long term drift appears to be 2 x 10^-9 /year. I've no idea 
how old they are, but assuming 10 years that puts a maximum drift of 2 x 10^-8. 
The biggest variation however would appear to be in the C-field setting, which 
has a range of 2 x 10^-7. So assuming the C-field was completely wrong, and the 
maximum drift, that gives me an error of 2 x 10^-8 + 2 x 10^-7 = 2.2 x 10^-7.

Anything else, like input voltage sensitivity would appear to be negligible in 
compassion to those.

I must admit, that's worst than I was expecting. I was not really expecting an 
error of more than 10^-8, but it appears it could be a lot worst.

-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?