[time-nuts] HP10811 vs 00105 OCXO

Discussion:

t***@timeok.it

2015-08-06 09:03:43 UTC

Hi,

I have done some measurement comparing two HP OCXO, the HP10811 and the 105.

These two oscillator are mounted in the HP5065A rubidium Standard, the 105 in the old models, the 10811 in newer, and for this purpose they are selected units.

I have two HP5065A use the different oscillators. For the stability test I have set the two 5065A in Open loop so the OCXO are free running .
I have done the measurements using as reference a third HP5065A in closed loop operation.

Here the files show the frequency and phase difference.

The 00105-6034 appear to be more stable as frequency than the 10811.

comments?

Luciano
www.timeok.it
Message sent via Atmail Open - http://atmail.org/

c***@juno.com

2015-08-06 18:38:54 UTC

Permalink

Luciano,

I have found that "selected" 10811 units will offer significantly better
short term stability as a stand alone or open loop oscillator over the
105 style oscillator. (Mid parts in 10-13th from 1 to 100 Seconds)

However with the 5065A locked the performance will be driven by the loop
and both styles will give similar performance.

Cheers,

Corby

_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- time-***@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Bob Camp

2015-08-07 01:37:04 UTC

Permalink

Hi

HP 10811’s vary over almost a 100:1 range in terms of ADEV performance at short tau. The standard model is un-sealed so it has some issues
with humidity when it is in storage for a long time. In both the case of the 10811 and the 105, their stability will improve as they are
on power. In the case of long term storage, they both may continue to improve for more than a month.

All of this makes any sort of comparison between the two models a bit difficult. About all you can say is that on a given day, this example of one
was (or was not) more stable than that example of the other model.

Bob

Post by t***@timeok.it
Hi,
I have done some measurement comparing two HP OCXO, the HP10811 and the 105.
These two oscillator are mounted in the HP5065A rubidium Standard, the 105 in the old models, the 10811 in newer, and for this purpose they are selected units.
I have two HP5065A use the different oscillators. For the stability test I have set the two 5065A in Open loop so the OCXO are free running .
I have done the measurements using as reference a third HP5065A in closed loop operation.
Here the files show the frequency and phase difference.
The 00105-6034 appear to be more stable as frequency than the 10811.
comments?
Luciano
www.timeok.it
Message sent via Atmail Open - http://atmail.org/<HP 10811 00105 vs HP5065A.gif><HP 00105 6034 vs HP5065A.gif>_______________________________________________
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

t***@timeok.it

2015-08-07 03:37:22 UTC

Permalink

here the ADEV of the two oscillator. I have added the Super performance of an HP105B (old oscillator) bought in an Ham fest.

Luciano

Hi
HP 10811âs vary over almost a 100:1 range in terms of ADEV performance
at short tau. The standard model is un-sealed so it has some issues
with humidity when it is in storage for a long time. In both the case of
the 10811 and the 105, their stability will improve as they are
on power. In the case of long term storage, they both may continue to
improve for more than a month.
All of this makes any sort of comparison between the two models a bit
difficult. About all you can say is that on a given day, this example of
one
was (or was not) more stable than that example of the other model.
Bob

Hi,
I have done some measurement comparing two HP OCXO, the HP10811 and the

105.

These two oscillator are mounted in the HP5065A rubidium Standard, the

105 in the old models, the 10811 in newer, and for this purpose they are
selected units.

I have two HP5065A use the different oscillators. For the stability test

I have set the two 5065A in Open loop so the OCXO are free running .

I have done the measurements using as reference a third HP5065A in

closed loop operation.

Here the files show the frequency and phase difference.
The 00105-6034 appear to be more stable as frequency than the 10811.
comments?
Luciano
www.timeok.it [1]
Message sent via Atmail Open -

http://atmail.org/_______________________________________________

To unsubscribe, go to

https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts [3]

and follow the instructions there.

------
[1] http://webmail.timeok.it/parse.php?redirect=http://www.timeok.it
[2]
http://webmail.timeok.it/parse.php?redirect=http://atmail.org/%26lt%3BHP
[3]
http://webmail.timeok.it/parse.php?redirect=https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/ma
ilman/listinfo/time-nuts

Message sent via Atmail Open - http://atmail.org/

Tom Van Baak

2015-08-07 12:36:04 UTC

Permalink

Hi Luciano,

Thanks for that plot. In general an ADEV plots shows more succinctly the differences between oscillators than the raw phase and frequency plots that you posted earlier. The jitter and wander of your phase plots give a hint, but an ADEV plot neatly summarizes all this with statistics.

About the 00105 vs. 10811 -- it's nearly impossible to make solid claims about one vs. the other. Oscillators of the same make/model vary a lot. Oscillators that are 20 or 30 or 40 years old may not behave the same way they did when they left the manufacturing line. A ham fest or eBay buy adds its own special mystery, for better or worse.

The SC-cut 10811 warms up quickly. But that feature is irrelevant for a frequency standard that you power up once and then leave running the rest of your life. Low daily frequency drift is important, unless you use the oscillator as part of a 5065 or 5061 or GPSDO. Then even drift rate is irrelevant.

The simple answer is -- just measure it. Don't rely on the name or make or model. It may be an order of magnitude better than original spec. Or it might be an order of magnitude worse.

My dream would be to solicit a hundred ADEV plots of 00105 and 10811 from all time nuts and then make an informative plot or histogram. But still even that plot would not predict the performance of a random OCXO that you pick up from a ham fest.

/tvb

----- Original Message -----
From: <***@timeok.it>
To: "Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement" <time-***@febo.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] HP10811 vs 00105 OCXO

here the ADEV of the two oscillator. I have added the Super performance of an HP105B (old oscillator) bought in an Ham fest.

Luciano

Post by Bob Camp
Hi
HP 10811’s vary over almost a 100:1 range in terms of ADEV performance
at short tau. The standard model is un-sealed so it has some issues
with humidity when it is in storage for a long time. In both the case of
the 10811 and the 105, their stability will improve as they are
on power. In the case of long term storage, they both may continue to
improve for more than a month.
All of this makes any sort of comparison between the two models a bit
difficult. About all you can say is that on a given day, this example of
one
was (or was not) more stable than that example of the other model.
Bob

Hi,
I have done some measurement comparing two HP OCXO, the HP10811 and the

105.

These two oscillator are mounted in the HP5065A rubidium Standard, the

105 in the old models, the 10811 in newer, and for this purpose they are
selected units.

I have two HP5065A use the different oscillators. For the stability test

I have set the two 5065A in Open loop so the OCXO are free running .

I have done the measurements using as reference a third HP5065A in

closed loop operation.

Here the files show the frequency and phase difference.
The 00105-6034 appear to be more stable as frequency than the 10811.
comments?
Luciano

Bob Camp

2015-08-07 13:06:17 UTC

Permalink

Hi

If that data is correct, then the 10811 you have is defective.

Bob

Post by t***@timeok.it
here the ADEV of the two oscillator. I have added the Super performance of an HP105B (old oscillator) bought in an Ham fest.
Luciano

Hi,
I have done some measurement comparing two HP OCXO, the HP10811 and the

105.

These two oscillator are mounted in the HP5065A rubidium Standard, the

105 in the old models, the 10811 in newer, and for this purpose they are
selected units.

I have two HP5065A use the different oscillators. For the stability test

I have set the two 5065A in Open loop so the OCXO are free running .

I have done the measurements using as reference a third HP5065A in

closed loop operation.

Here the files show the frequency and phase difference.
The 00105-6034 appear to be more stable as frequency than the 10811.
comments?
Luciano
www.timeok.it [1]
Message sent via Atmail Open -

http://atmail.org/_______________________________________________

To unsubscribe, go to

https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts [3]

and follow the instructions there.

Message sent via Atmail Open - Loading Image...

>_______________________________________________
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

John Miles

2015-08-07 21:21:27 UTC

Permalink

Post by Bob Camp
Hi
If that data is correct, then the 10811 you have is defective.
Bob

Well... some of the data is reasonable for a scenario where a counter is being used to measure OCXOs.

Looking at the ADEV plot, I'd say the blue trace (HP105B vs 5065A) is the most questionable one if it came from a standalone TIC or frequency counter, because 7E-12 @ t=1s isn't achievable with most counters under most circumstances. A Wavecrest box can measure at that level if it's set up _perfectly_ to take bursts of 100+ wrap-free averages within a small fraction of the t0 interval. It might also be doable with an HP 5370A/B under similar conditions, but I'd have less confidence that the averaging isn't distorting the measurement. So while It looks like a valid measurement of an OCXO with some minor crosstalk or other external interference, that may just be a coincidence.

Luciano, how was the blue trace taken? Is this from your DMTD project? If so, it's looking promising.

The green and magenta traces are definitely in the right ballpark for measurements on a 5370-class counter. At 3E-11 @ t=12s the magenta trace is optimistic but not outrageously so, while the green trace looks exactly like I'd expect for a typical 10811 measured on a 5370. The observed noise is due entirely to the counter until about t=200s. We see a glimpse of the 10811's typical ADEV at about 250 seconds, just before either drift or ADEV uncertainty causes the trace to turn upwards. A longer run would be needed to distinguish between these two situations.

-- john, KE5FX
Miles Design LLC

_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- time-***@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Bob Camp

2015-08-08 00:23:17 UTC

Permalink

Hi

Well an un-stated assumption of mine was that they all came from the same measurement system and that it
had the same floor under all circumstances….

Bob

Post by John Miles

Post by Bob Camp
Hi
If that data is correct, then the 10811 you have is defective.
Bob

Well... some of the data is reasonable for a scenario where a counter is being used to measure OCXOs.
Luciano, how was the blue trace taken? Is this from your DMTD project? If so, it's looking promising.
-- john, KE5FX
Miles Design LLC
_______________________________________________
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Mark Spencer

2015-08-07 18:45:33 UTC

Permalink

Hi Luciano. That is interesting. Thanks for sharing this.

I also have an HP105B with the old style oscillator. (An auction site purchase from years ago.) Yours seems at bit better than the one I have at tau's of approx 100 seconds or so. I'm curious if you have any data for longer tau's ?

All the best Mark Spencer

Post by t***@timeok.it
here the ADEV of the two oscillator. I have added the Super performance of an HP105B (old oscillator) bought in an Ham fest.
Luciano

Hi,
I have done some measurement comparing two HP OCXO, the HP10811 and the

105.

These two oscillator are mounted in the HP5065A rubidium Standard, the

105 in the old models, the 10811 in newer, and for this purpose they are
selected units.

I have two HP5065A use the different oscillators. For the stability test

I have set the two 5065A in Open loop so the OCXO are free running .

I have done the measurements using as reference a third HP5065A in

closed loop operation.

Here the files show the frequency and phase difference.
The 00105-6034 appear to be more stable as frequency than the 10811.
comments?
Luciano
www.timeok.it [1]
Message sent via Atmail Open -

http://atmail.org/_______________________________________________

To unsubscribe, go to

https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts [3]

and follow the instructions there.

Message sent via Atmail Open - http://atmail.org/
<ocxo.gif>
_______________________________________________
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

t***@timeok.it

2015-08-07 07:14:35 UTC

Permalink

Hi Corby,

I agree with you that if selected, there may be many differences between objects of the same type. Unfortunately it is very difficult to know what is selected and what is not. For example I found a 10811 mounted in a Z3801A who have the temperature set-point completely wrong. I remember that TVB has done tests on a number of Z3801s and the results were very different from one to each other. In fact I would expect HP since it is bothered to put a second oven in Z3801A, had selected the oscillators but it is not.

I have not yet measured the 105 Phase noise, I have a 5MHz reference is -115 and -135 dBc respectively at 1 and 10 Hz.

Luciano
www.timeok.it

Post by c***@juno.com
Luciano,
I have found that "selected" 10811 units will offer significantly better
short term stability as a stand alone or open loop oscillator over the
105 style oscillator. (Mid parts in 10-13th from 1 to 100 Seconds)
However with the 5065A locked the performance will be driven by the loop
and both styles will give similar performance.
Cheers,
Corby
_______________________________________________
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts [1]
and follow the instructions there.
------
[1]
http://webmail.timeok.it/parse.php?redirect=https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/ma
ilman/listinfo/time-nuts

Message sent via Atmail Open - http://atmail.org/
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- time-***@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Bob Camp

2015-08-07 13:12:06 UTC

Permalink

Hi

The outer oven in the 3801 was put there for a very specific purpose:

When the 3801 was designed, they had a target specification that included a warmup from -40C.
The 10811 was never designed to work at these temperatures and simply could not meet the
required warmup time.

The “solution” that they came up with was to put a heater around the 10811 (without modifying it
internally) to get the case up to a fairly high temperature quickly. This allowed them to meet the
-40C specification on their target sheet. As it turns out, it is very unclear if the 3801 ever went into
the sort of environment that would expose it to that sort of low end temperature.

HP published a number of papers on the 10811 and it’s successor. They go into great detail about
the thermal optimization of the part and why you can easily have “to much of a good thing” and actually
make the oscillator worse.

Bob

Post by t***@timeok.it
Hi Corby,
I agree with you that if selected, there may be many differences between objects of the same type. Unfortunately it is very difficult to know what is selected and what is not. For example I found a 10811 mounted in a Z3801A who have the temperature set-point completely wrong. I remember that TVB has done tests on a number of Z3801s and the results were very different from one to each other. In fact I would expect HP since it is bothered to put a second oven in Z3801A, had selected the oscillators but it is not.
I have not yet measured the 105 Phase noise, I have a 5MHz reference is -115 and -135 dBc respectively at 1 and 10 Hz.
Luciano
www.timeok.it

Message sent via Atmail Open - http://atmail.org/
_______________________________________________
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Poul-Henning Kamp

2015-08-07 13:48:26 UTC

Permalink

--------

Post by t***@timeok.it
For example I found a 10811 mounted in a Z3801A who have the
temperature set-point completely wrong.

The "turn-over" temperature can shift rather dramatically if the
X-tal is subjected to large mechanical shocks. This is
very relevant for 2nd-hand equipment, and doubly so if it has
been through the E-waste circuit via China.

--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
***@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- time-***@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

t***@timeok.it

2015-08-08 16:25:01 UTC

Permalink

Hi all,

I try to ansver to all you:

Luciano, how was the blue trace taken? Is this from your DMTD project? If so, it's looking promising.
The green and magenta traces are definitely in the right ballpark for measurements on a 5370-class counter. At 3E-11 @ t=12s the magenta trace is optimistic but not outrageously so, while the green trace looks exactly like I'd expect for a typical 10811 measured on a 5370. The observed noise is due entirely to the counter until about t=200s. We see a glimpse of the 10811's typical ADEV at about 250 seconds, just before either drift or ADEV uncertainty causes the trace to turn upwards. A longer run would be needed to distinguish between these two situations.

-- john, KE5FX
Miles Design LLC

r: no, all the measurements are taken using an HP53132A in frequency mode. The difference can be the gate time. Using 1 second the resolution is lower than using 2 Second that permit the max counter resolution.

Hi

Well an un-stated assumption of mine was that they all came from the same measurement system and that it
had the same floor under all circumstances….

Bob

r: all the measurements are under the same conditions except for the gate time of the counter.

Hi Luciano,

Can you give me the link to your ADEV posting image about 10811 vs 105 oscillators? I had it and now can't seem to find it. I wanted to look at your plots as I read John Miles' comments. Many thanks.

I have two very high performing HP10811-60109 OCXO units which I got from Corby.

Many thanks.

Jim Robbins
N1JR

r: Jim, I will load soon some files on my site. The 105B I have is a fantastic exception, unfortunately it have a defect, may be a bad solder inside cause randomly a phase jump and return to the original phase trend, so all The long term ADEV are distorted by this problem I have to fix.

Tom VB, i will do all the cross measurements on 10811, 00105 and rubidium I have and i will upload they but I need time to do this.
Unfortunately I have only the HP53132A as TIC and my best reference are four HP5065A. I normally use the counter function because the TI function on 1 PPS have 100 time less resolution.
Will be interesting doing also the Phase noise tests. I will do it.
please see: http://www.timeok.it/files/time_and_frequency_house_standard_201r.pdf

Luciano
www.timeok.it

Post by Bob Camp
Hi
Well an un-stated assumption of mine was that they all came from the same
measurement system and that it
had the same floor under all circumstances….
Bob

Post by John Miles

Post by Bob Camp
Hi
If that data is correct, then the 10811 you have is defective.
Bob

Well... some of the data is reasonable for a scenario where a counter is

being used to measure OCXOs.

Post by John Miles
Looking at the ADEV plot, I'd say the blue trace (HP105B vs 5065A) is

the most questionable one if it came from a standalone TIC or frequency
most circumstances. A Wavecrest box can measure at that level if it's set
up _perfectly_ to take bursts of 100+ wrap-free averages within a small
fraction of the t0 interval. It might also be doable with an HP 5370A/B
under similar conditions, but I'd have less confidence that the averaging
isn't distorting the measurement. So while It looks like a valid
measurement of an OCXO with some minor crosstalk or other external
interference, that may just be a coincidence.

Post by John Miles
Luciano, how was the blue trace taken? Is this from your DMTD project?

If so, it's looking promising.

Post by John Miles
The green and magenta traces are definitely in the right ballpark for

optimistic but not outrageously so, while the green trace looks exactly
like I'd expect for a typical 10811 measured on a 5370. The observed noise
is due entirely to the counter until about t=200s. We see a glimpse of the
10811's typical ADEV at about 250 seconds, just before either drift or ADEV
uncertainty causes the trace to turn upwards. A longer run would be needed
to distinguish between these two situations.

Post by John Miles
-- john, KE5FX
Miles Design LLC
_______________________________________________
To unsubscribe, go to

https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts [1]

Post by John Miles
and follow the instructions there.

_______________________________________________
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts [2]
and follow the instructions there.
------
[1]
http://webmail.timeok.it/parse.php?redirect=https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/ma
ilman/listinfo/time-nuts[2]
http://webmail.timeok.it/parse.php?redirect=https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/ma
ilman/listinfo/time-nuts

Bob Camp

2015-08-08 20:16:05 UTC

Permalink

Hi

Ok, so John’s observation was the correct one. The data we are looking at is *not* the
performance of the OCXO’s but the strange behavior of the counter at short ADEV Tau’s.

Sorry for my bashing your poor 10811.

Bob

Post by t***@timeok.it
Hi all,
Luciano, how was the blue trace taken? Is this from your DMTD project? If so, it's looking promising.
-- john, KE5FX
Miles Design LLC
r: no, all the measurements are taken using an HP53132A in frequency mode. The difference can be the gate time. Using 1 second the resolution is lower than using 2 Second that permit the max counter resolution.
Hi
Well an un-stated assumption of mine was that they all came from the same measurement system and that it
had the same floor under all circumstances….
Bob
r: all the measurements are under the same conditions except for the gate time of the counter.
Hi Luciano,
Can you give me the link to your ADEV posting image about 10811 vs 105 oscillators? I had it and now can't seem to find it. I wanted to look at your plots as I read John Miles' comments. Many thanks.
I have two very high performing HP10811-60109 OCXO units which I got from Corby.
Many thanks.
Jim Robbins
N1JR
r: Jim, I will load soon some files on my site. The 105B I have is a fantastic exception, unfortunately it have a defect, may be a bad solder inside cause randomly a phase jump and return to the original phase trend, so all The long term ADEV are distorted by this problem I have to fix.
Tom VB, i will do all the cross measurements on 10811, 00105 and rubidium I have and i will upload they but I need time to do this.
Unfortunately I have only the HP53132A as TIC and my best reference are four HP5065A. I normally use the counter function because the TI function on 1 PPS have 100 time less resolution.
Will be interesting doing also the Phase noise tests. I will do it.
please see: http://www.timeok.it/files/time_and_frequency_house_standard_201r.pdf
Luciano
www.timeok.it

Post by Bob Camp
Hi
Well an un-stated assumption of mine was that they all came from the same
measurement system and that it
had the same floor under all circumstances….
Bob

Post by John Miles

Post by Bob Camp
Hi
If that data is correct, then the 10811 you have is defective.
Bob

Well... some of the data is reasonable for a scenario where a counter is

being used to measure OCXOs.

Post by John Miles
Looking at the ADEV plot, I'd say the blue trace (HP105B vs 5065A) is

Post by John Miles
Luciano, how was the blue trace taken? Is this from your DMTD project?

If so, it's looking promising.

Post by John Miles
The green and magenta traces are definitely in the right ballpark for

Post by John Miles
-- john, KE5FX
Miles Design LLC
_______________________________________________
To unsubscribe, go to

https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts [1]

Post by John Miles
and follow the instructions there.

KA2WEU--- via time-nuts

2015-08-08 23:21:13 UTC

Permalink

How good or bad is the 10811 and which one on ebay is a better choice ?
I am looking for a very goo 5 MHz crystal oscillator with documentation .

Thanks, Ulrich N1UL

In a message dated 8/8/2015 7:16:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
***@n1k.org writes:

Hi

Ok, so John’s observation was the correct one. The data we are looking at
is *not* the
performance of the OCXO’s but the strange behavior of the counter at short
ADEV Tau’s.

Sorry for my bashing your poor 10811.

Bob

Post by t***@timeok.it
Hi all,
Luciano, how was the blue trace taken? Is this from your DMTD project?

If so, it's looking promising.

Post by t***@timeok.it
The green and magenta traces are definitely in the right ballpark for

measurements on a 5370-class counter. At 3E-11 @ t=12s the magenta trace is
optimistic but not outrageously so, while the green trace looks exactly like
I'd expect for a typical 10811 measured on a 5370. The observed noise is
due entirely to the counter until about t=200s. We see a glimpse of the
10811's typical ADEV at about 250 seconds, just before either drift or ADEV
uncertainty causes the trace to turn upwards. A longer run would be needed to
distinguish between these two situations.

Post by t***@timeok.it
-- john, KE5FX
Miles Design LLC
r: no, all the measurements are taken using an HP53132A in frequency

mode. The difference can be the gate time. Using 1 second the resolution is
lower than using 2 Second that permit the max counter resolution.

Post by t***@timeok.it
Hi
Well an un-stated assumption of mine was that they all came from the

same measurement system and that it

Post by t***@timeok.it
had the same floor under all circumstances….
Bob
r: all the measurements are under the same conditions except for the

gate time of the counter.

Post by t***@timeok.it
Hi Luciano,
Can you give me the link to your ADEV posting image about 10811 vs 105

oscillators? I had it and now can't seem to find it. I wanted to look at
your plots as I read John Miles' comments. Many thanks.

Post by t***@timeok.it
I have two very high performing HP10811-60109 OCXO units which I got

from Corby.

Post by t***@timeok.it
Many thanks.
Jim Robbins
N1JR
r: Jim, I will load soon some files on my site. The 105B I have is a

fantastic exception, unfortunately it have a defect, may be a bad solder
inside cause randomly a phase jump and return to the original phase trend, so
all The long term ADEV are distorted by this problem I have to fix.

Post by t***@timeok.it
Tom VB, i will do all the cross measurements on 10811, 00105 and

rubidium I have and i will upload they but I need time to do this.

Post by t***@timeok.it
Unfortunately I have only the HP53132A as TIC and my best reference are

four HP5065A. I normally use the counter function because the TI function
on 1 PPS have 100 time less resolution.

Post by t***@timeok.it
Will be interesting doing also the Phase noise tests. I will do it.

http://www.timeok.it/files/time_and_frequency_house_standard_201r.pdf

Post by t***@timeok.it
Luciano
www.timeok.it

Hi
Well an un-stated assumption of mine was that they all came from the

same