[time-freq] Rubidium standards
Eric Lemmon wb6fly at verizon.netFri Feb 8 19:04:41 UTC 2008
- Previous message: [time-freq] Rubidium standards
- Next message: [time-freq] Re: time-freq Digest, Vol 22, Issue 1
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Randy, An excellent question! Basically, there are two types of "atomic" oscillators that are compact enough to find application in a small laboratory: Cesium and rubidium. A cesium oscillator is absolutely correct, but it has some jitter. A rubidium oscillator is very stable, but it must be calibrated periodically with a cesium or hydrogen maser oscillator. I have some experience using Z3801 GPS-disciplined oscillators, and I can state that they are quite stable and accurate. However, they use an oven-stabilized crystal oscillator which is nowhere near as stable as a rubidium oscillator. The GPS constellation relies on periodic corrections from a ground-based control station, so there are some very small errors that can be corrected over the long term, along with some quantization jitter, as well as atmospheric effects to contend with. The primary NIST standard is a cesium fountain, described here: <http://tf.nist.gov/cesium/fountain.htm> There are several very interesting papers available on the NIST site regarding cesium and rubidium clocks. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -----Original Message----- From: time-freq-bounces at lists.tapr.org [mailto:time-freq-bounces at lists.tapr.org] On Behalf Of Randy Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 9:15 AM To: 'TAPR time and frequency projects' Subject: [time-freq] Rubidium standards I see advertised once in a while Rubidium frequency standards that include the following statement: "The Rubidium standard is carefully calibrated to a GPS Disciplined Oscillator." I thought those standards were based on the atomic physics of Rubidium and that was what determined the frequency. Why do they need to be "calibrated" at all? This also suggests that a GPS-disciplined oscillator is better than the Rubidium standard. It that true? Are the HP Z3801 oscillators, for example, ordinarily more accurate than a good Rubidium standard? Thanks! Randy Stegemeyer, W7HR Port Orchard, WA _______________________________________________ time-freq mailing list time-freq at lists.tapr.org https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-freq
- Previous message: [time-freq] Rubidium standards
- Next message: [time-freq] Re: time-freq Digest, Vol 22, Issue 1
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the time-freq mailing list
