time-nuts-request@febo.com wrote: >Send time-nuts mailing list submissions to > time-nuts@febo.com > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > time-nuts-request@febo.com > >You can reach the person managing the list at > time-nuts-owner@febo.com > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of time-nuts digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. RE: Warning: HP oscillators on eBay from todoelmondo(Ray > Mahoney) (Richard (Rick) Karlquist (N6RK)) > 2. Re: Warning: HP oscillators on eBay from todoelmondo(Ray > Mahoney) (David Kirkby) > 3. Re: Warning: HP oscillators on eBay from todoelmondo(Ray > Mahoney) (Poul-Henning Kamp) > 4. RE: Warning: HP oscillators on eBay from > todoelmondo(RayMahoney) (John Miles) > 5. Re: Warning: HP oscillators on eBay from todoelmondo(Ray > Mahoney) (David Kirkby) > 6. Re: Warning: HP oscillators on eBay from todoelmondo(Ray > Mahoney) (Poul-Henning Kamp) > 7. RE: Warning: HP oscillators on eBay from > todoelmondo(RayMahoney) (John Miles) > 8. Re: Warning: HP oscillators on eBay from todoelmondo(Ray > Mahoney) (David Kirkby) > 9. Re: Warning: HP oscillators on eBay from todoelmondo(Ray > Mahoney) (John Ackermann N8UR) > 10. Re: Warning: HP oscillators on eBay (Tom Van Baak) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 10:18:33 -0700 >From: "Richard \(Rick\) Karlquist \(N6RK\)" <richard@karlquist.com> >Subject: RE: [time-nuts] Warning: HP oscillators on eBay from > todoelmondo(Ray Mahoney) >To: <kirbybq@bellsouth.net>, "Discussion of precise time and frequency > measurement" <time-nuts@febo.com>, <joegeller@earthlink.net> >Message-ID: <MGEKKFGEAIKJOOPJPGIKGEEKFFAA.richard@karlquist.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >, but it looks like a list of > > >>numbers folllows this, and not the letter A I'm converned this is >>perhaps a special, at an odd freqency, and not the standard 10MHz >>10811A. Is there any where it actually says 10811A on the >>package? Can you give me a price to ship to the UK. Address would >> >> > >All 10811's of any flavor have 10 MHz outputs. (Except an extremely >small number of prototypes at 10.23 MHz for a GPS initiative that >were never released AFAIK). If you know anything about making >an SC cut crystal of the quality of the 10811, you would know >that changing the frequency requires a huge R&D investment, way >beyond what any special could justify. > >There are basically only three models of 10811 made: > >1) With PC edge connector >2) With coax connectors >3) Special for the 5071A with extended tuning range, >which is unlikely to show up for sale. > >All 10811-6XXXX are simply selections of one of the above. >After a lot of time has gone by, these selections are, for the >most part, irrelevant. > >"Model 10811A" is a nomenclature used in cases where an >oscillator was sold directly to the end user as a component. >HP was briefly in the merchant oscillator business. The >vast majority of 10811's were for internal use. They all >have 10811-6XXXX numbers. Many of the 10811-6XXXX numbers >are selected to meet tighter specs than the 10811A spec. >There is nothing superior about an oscillator labeled "10811A". >BTW, it was superceded years ago by the 10811D/E, in terms of >model numbers. > >Rick Karlquist >R&D Engineer at HP Santa Clara Division 1979-1998 > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 2 >Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 21:42:33 +0100 >From: David Kirkby <david.kirkby@onetel.net> >Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Warning: HP oscillators on eBay from > todoelmondo(Ray Mahoney) >To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement > <time-nuts@febo.com> >Message-ID: <427FCB39.3030702@onetel.net> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed > >Richard (Rick) Karlquist (N6RK) wrote: > > > >>All 10811-6XXXX are simply selections of one of the above. >>After a lot of time has gone by, these selections are, for the >>most part, irrelevant. >> >> > >The specs on the 10811A are higher than on the 10811-60111. If I >remember correctly, there are no phase noise specs at all on the >10811-60111, and the stability is only specified at 1s and is twice as >poor as the 10811A. (I'm going from memory). > >Are you simply saying that as these are all old components, any >oscillator that was a higher spec 20 years ago has no higher probability >of being good today than one that was less good 20 years ago? > >Tom has said he has tested bad 10811A's and good 10811-60111's. > >I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that there would be a higher probability >of a randomly chosen 10811A being better today than a randomly chosen >10811-60111. I guess the only way to know this is to test a sufficient >number to get statically valid data - something that I doubt few would >have sufficient oscillators to be able to do, and even fewer could be >bothered to do. > > > I fully support and agree with what Rick Karlquist (R&D Engineer at HP Santa Clara Division 1979-1998) said about the 10811A vs 10811-60111's. I too worked for HP (1973-1979) and I saw the same thing happen with many of the HP parts not only the ones form Santa Clara, but also from Palo Alto and the Santa Rosa divisions as well. It was common practise to build components that would be designed for a particular application in an instrument and then use that part as a saleable component to the outside world. The 33222A attenuator was a perfect example as well as the 10811A. Just because it has a suffix number doesn't mean it is built to a looser spec. In fact most of the internal parts were built to tighter specs than those available as an external part because they were to be part of a complex instrument and thus contributed to an overall package. The production line tolerances were always much tighter than published specs because the company had to ensure that when the customer received the product they would be sure that it meet customer specifications. Remember HP was a qualtiy company with a high level of employee and company pride in their products. Just because it is mounted on a circuit board doesn't mean that it is of lesser spec or quality. Remember, like all electronic gear it is that end application that really determines needs. If something is going to sit on your workbench shelf, do you care what kind of g-force it is designed to withstand? Having worked for HP and knowing what I do about the Santa Clara products (counters, time modules, etc) I would not worry in the least about taking a 10811- 60111 mounted on a ciruit board and using it. Incidently, if you are really concerned I have documentation that say the 10811-60111 is actually based on the 10811C/D which is again a much higher spec than the 10811A. So you are actually getting a better product. I would take the board and offer an apology for the negative feedback. If you do a google on the 10811-60111 you'll find that you were actually being offered a better product. 73's Glenn Tracy. VE6GJT.