Hello everyone, let me address the below claims and commentary which was posted without first consulting with us. Microsemi has recently seen a slightly higher failure rate of the CSAC oscillators than expected. A small percentage of our customers have been adversely affected by this issue. We have been, and will continue to take care of this issue when it happens to units we sold by doing a warranty exchange of the CSAC for the affected customer unit, even if it should fall out of its normal warranty period. We believe in supporting our customers to the maximum extent possible, and of course want to deliver a product that has the highest level of quality possible. That said, we must remember that the CSAC technology is a ground breaking, never-before-done in commercial quantities, absolutely new type of oscillator technology, and being at the forefront of such a technology sometimes means there is a bit of a learning curve to deal with. This is one of the main reasons why no one else in the world besides Microsemi makes CSAC type products for commercial sale. So all in all, if a customer unit should get affected by this problem then the issue will be addressed by us and Microsemi with a quick turn around and a "no questions asked" approach, and we hope that this approach sets us positively apart from the competition. Lastly, we received the below comments/explanation from Microsemi about this issue which we have permission to share with you, and this should help alleviate the problem for new orders. Sincerely, Said **************************************************************************** **************************************** Some Symmetricom (now Microsemi) Chip Scale Atomic Clocks have shown a failure mode that will manifest itself as an inability of the clock to achieve atomic lock. If the CSAC’s telemetry string is monitored, the failure mode will show up as a Status Level 8. Microsemi’s investigation into the problem uncovered three distinct root causes, although the symptom the user observes is always a Status Level 8, regardless of which root cause is the underlying issue. It is important to note that all three root causes are process issues, not design issues. All three root causes have been addressed, and Microsemi is currently producing CSAC’s with all three fixes implemented. A full re-qualification of the CSAC is also being done, to ensure that the fixes are effective. CSAC’ s already in the field that exhibit this failure mode have been, and will continue to be, replaced under warranty. **************************************************************************** **************************************** In a message dated 4/24/2014 10:16:25 Pacific Daylight Time, lester@veenstras.com writes: Affected Products: Jackson Labs or Symmetricom time/frequency reference boards based on Symmetricom chip scale atomic clock

Said, I recognize this situation so well. Feel with you on the issue and hope you find that it resolve itself nicely. Cheers, Magnus On 04/24/2014 10:50 PM, SAIDJACK@aol.com wrote: > Hello everyone, > > let me address the below claims and commentary which was posted without > first consulting with us. > > Microsemi has recently seen a slightly higher failure rate of the CSAC > oscillators than expected. A small percentage of our customers have been > adversely affected by this issue. We have been, and will continue to take care > of this issue when it happens to units we sold by doing a warranty exchange > of the CSAC for the affected customer unit, even if it should fall out of > its normal warranty period. > > We believe in supporting our customers to the maximum extent possible, and > of course want to deliver a product that has the highest level of quality > possible. That said, we must remember that the CSAC technology is a ground > breaking, never-before-done in commercial quantities, absolutely new type of > oscillator technology, and being at the forefront of such a technology > sometimes means there is a bit of a learning curve to deal with. This is one > of the main reasons why no one else in the world besides Microsemi makes > CSAC type products for commercial sale. > > So all in all, if a customer unit should get affected by this problem then > the issue will be addressed by us and Microsemi with a quick turn around > and a "no questions asked" approach, and we hope that this approach sets us > positively apart from the competition. > > Lastly, we received the below comments/explanation from Microsemi about > this issue which we have permission to share with you, and this should help > alleviate the problem for new orders. > > Sincerely, > Said > > **************************************************************************** > **************************************** > Some Symmetricom (now Microsemi) Chip Scale Atomic Clocks have shown a > failure mode that will manifest itself as an inability of the clock to achieve > atomic lock. If the CSAC’s telemetry string is monitored, the failure > mode will show up as a Status Level 8. Microsemi’s investigation into the > problem uncovered three distinct root causes, although the symptom the user > observes is always a Status Level 8, regardless of which root cause is the > underlying issue. It is important to note that all three root causes are > process issues, not design issues. > All three root causes have been addressed, and Microsemi is currently > producing CSAC’s with all three fixes implemented. A full re-qualification of > the CSAC is also being done, to ensure that the fixes are effective. CSAC’ > s already in the field that exhibit this failure mode have been, and will > continue to be, replaced under warranty. > **************************************************************************** > **************************************** > > > In a message dated 4/24/2014 10:16:25 Pacific Daylight Time, > lester@veenstras.com writes: > > > Affected Products: Jackson Labs or Symmetricom time/frequency reference > boards based on Symmetricom chip scale atomic clock > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. >

Hi I seem to have been in exactly the same position many times before and also wish you well in resolving this (as I’m *certain* will be the case). Bob On Apr 24, 2014, at 7:48 PM, Magnus Danielson <magnus@rubidium.dyndns.org> wrote: > Said, > > I recognize this situation so well. Feel with you on the issue and hope you find that it resolve itself nicely. > > Cheers, > Magnus > > On 04/24/2014 10:50 PM, SAIDJACK@aol.com wrote: >> Hello everyone, >> >> let me address the below claims and commentary which was posted without >> first consulting with us. >> >> Microsemi has recently seen a slightly higher failure rate of the CSAC >> oscillators than expected. A small percentage of our customers have been >> adversely affected by this issue. We have been, and will continue to take care >> of this issue when it happens to units we sold by doing a warranty exchange >> of the CSAC for the affected customer unit, even if it should fall out of >> its normal warranty period. >> >> We believe in supporting our customers to the maximum extent possible, and >> of course want to deliver a product that has the highest level of quality >> possible. That said, we must remember that the CSAC technology is a ground >> breaking, never-before-done in commercial quantities, absolutely new type of >> oscillator technology, and being at the forefront of such a technology >> sometimes means there is a bit of a learning curve to deal with. This is one >> of the main reasons why no one else in the world besides Microsemi makes >> CSAC type products for commercial sale. >> >> So all in all, if a customer unit should get affected by this problem then >> the issue will be addressed by us and Microsemi with a quick turn around >> and a "no questions asked" approach, and we hope that this approach sets us >> positively apart from the competition. >> >> Lastly, we received the below comments/explanation from Microsemi about >> this issue which we have permission to share with you, and this should help >> alleviate the problem for new orders. >> >> Sincerely, >> Said >> >> **************************************************************************** >> **************************************** >> Some Symmetricom (now Microsemi) Chip Scale Atomic Clocks have shown a >> failure mode that will manifest itself as an inability of the clock to achieve >> atomic lock. If the CSAC’s telemetry string is monitored, the failure >> mode will show up as a Status Level 8. Microsemi’s investigation into the >> problem uncovered three distinct root causes, although the symptom the user >> observes is always a Status Level 8, regardless of which root cause is the >> underlying issue. It is important to note that all three root causes are >> process issues, not design issues. >> All three root causes have been addressed, and Microsemi is currently >> producing CSAC’s with all three fixes implemented. A full re-qualification of >> the CSAC is also being done, to ensure that the fixes are effective. CSAC’ >> s already in the field that exhibit this failure mode have been, and will >> continue to be, replaced under warranty. >> **************************************************************************** >> **************************************** >> >> >> In a message dated 4/24/2014 10:16:25 Pacific Daylight Time, >> lester@veenstras.com writes: >> >> >> Affected Products: Jackson Labs or Symmetricom time/frequency reference >> boards based on Symmetricom chip scale atomic clock >> _______________________________________________ >> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@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@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there.

Hi Magnus, Bob, Thanks much for your kind words. The failure rate is thankfully so low that we are not greatly alarmed, and Microsemi has been a champ in resolving any failures with/for us when they did show up. We are awaiting the results of the full re-qualify that Microsemi is doing on the CSAC and were going to announce the issue at that time.. Bye, Said Sent From iPhone On Apr 24, 2014, at 17:41, Bob Camp <lists@rtty.us> wrote: > Hi > > I seem to have been in exactly the same position many times before and also wish you well in resolving this (as I’m *certain* will be the case). > > Bob > > On Apr 24, 2014, at 7:48 PM, Magnus Danielson <magnus@rubidium.dyndns.org> wrote: > >> Said, >> >> I recognize this situation so well. Feel with you on the issue and hope you find that it resolve itself nicely. >> >> Cheers, >> Magnus >> >> On 04/24/2014 10:50 PM, SAIDJACK@aol.com wrote: >>> Hello everyone, >>> >>> let me address the below claims and commentary which was posted without >>> first consulting with us. >>> >>> Microsemi has recently seen a slightly higher failure rate of the CSAC >>> oscillators than expected. A small percentage of our customers have been >>> adversely affected by this issue. We have been, and will continue to take care >>> of this issue when it happens to units we sold by doing a warranty exchange >>> of the CSAC for the affected customer unit, even if it should fall out of >>> its normal warranty period. >>> >>> We believe in supporting our customers to the maximum extent possible, and >>> of course want to deliver a product that has the highest level of quality >>> possible. That said, we must remember that the CSAC technology is a ground >>> breaking, never-before-done in commercial quantities, absolutely new type of >>> oscillator technology, and being at the forefront of such a technology >>> sometimes means there is a bit of a learning curve to deal with. This is one >>> of the main reasons why no one else in the world besides Microsemi makes >>> CSAC type products for commercial sale. >>> >>> So all in all, if a customer unit should get affected by this problem then >>> the issue will be addressed by us and Microsemi with a quick turn around >>> and a "no questions asked" approach, and we hope that this approach sets us >>> positively apart from the competition. >>> >>> Lastly, we received the below comments/explanation from Microsemi about >>> this issue which we have permission to share with you, and this should help >>> alleviate the problem for new orders. >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> Said >>> >>> **************************************************************************** >>> **************************************** >>> Some Symmetricom (now Microsemi) Chip Scale Atomic Clocks have shown a >>> failure mode that will manifest itself as an inability of the clock to achieve >>> atomic lock. If the CSAC’s telemetry string is monitored, the failure >>> mode will show up as a Status Level 8. Microsemi’s investigation into the >>> problem uncovered three distinct root causes, although the symptom the user >>> observes is always a Status Level 8, regardless of which root cause is the >>> underlying issue. It is important to note that all three root causes are >>> process issues, not design issues. >>> All three root causes have been addressed, and Microsemi is currently >>> producing CSAC’s with all three fixes implemented. A full re-qualification of >>> the CSAC is also being done, to ensure that the fixes are effective. CSAC’ >>> s already in the field that exhibit this failure mode have been, and will >>> continue to be, replaced under warranty. >>> **************************************************************************** >>> **************************************** >>> >>> >>> In a message dated 4/24/2014 10:16:25 Pacific Daylight Time, >>> lester@veenstras.com writes: >>> >>> >>> Affected Products: Jackson Labs or Symmetricom time/frequency reference >>> boards based on Symmetricom chip scale atomic clock >>> _______________________________________________ >>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@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@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@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there.

Out of curiosity, what's the current price for one of these for a time-nut to play with? Regards, Jim Palfreyman On 25 April 2014 11:26, Said Jackson <saidjack@aol.com> wrote: > Hi Magnus, Bob, > > Thanks much for your kind words. > > The failure rate is thankfully so low that we are not greatly alarmed, and > Microsemi has been a champ in resolving any failures with/for us when they > did show up. We are awaiting the results of the full re-qualify that > Microsemi is doing on the CSAC and were going to announce the issue at that > time.. > > Bye, > Said > > Sent From iPhone > > On Apr 24, 2014, at 17:41, Bob Camp <lists@rtty.us> wrote: > > > Hi > > > > I seem to have been in exactly the same position many times before and > also wish you well in resolving this (as I’m *certain* will be the case). > > > > Bob > > > > On Apr 24, 2014, at 7:48 PM, Magnus Danielson < > magnus@rubidium.dyndns.org> wrote: > > > >> Said, > >> > >> I recognize this situation so well. Feel with you on the issue and hope > you find that it resolve itself nicely. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Magnus > >> > >> On 04/24/2014 10:50 PM, SAIDJACK@aol.com wrote: > >>> Hello everyone, > >>> > >>> let me address the below claims and commentary which was posted without > >>> first consulting with us. > >>> > >>> Microsemi has recently seen a slightly higher failure rate of the CSAC > >>> oscillators than expected. A small percentage of our customers have > been > >>> adversely affected by this issue. We have been, and will continue to > take care > >>> of this issue when it happens to units we sold by doing a warranty > exchange > >>> of the CSAC for the affected customer unit, even if it should fall > out of > >>> its normal warranty period. > >>> > >>> We believe in supporting our customers to the maximum extent possible, > and > >>> of course want to deliver a product that has the highest level of > quality > >>> possible. That said, we must remember that the CSAC technology is a > ground > >>> breaking, never-before-done in commercial quantities, absolutely new > type of > >>> oscillator technology, and being at the forefront of such a technology > >>> sometimes means there is a bit of a learning curve to deal with. This > is one > >>> of the main reasons why no one else in the world besides Microsemi > makes > >>> CSAC type products for commercial sale. > >>> > >>> So all in all, if a customer unit should get affected by this problem > then > >>> the issue will be addressed by us and Microsemi with a quick turn > around > >>> and a "no questions asked" approach, and we hope that this approach > sets us > >>> positively apart from the competition. > >>> > >>> Lastly, we received the below comments/explanation from Microsemi > about > >>> this issue which we have permission to share with you, and this > should help > >>> alleviate the problem for new orders. > >>> > >>> Sincerely, > >>> Said > >>> > >>> > **************************************************************************** > >>> **************************************** > >>> Some Symmetricom (now Microsemi) Chip Scale Atomic Clocks have shown a > >>> failure mode that will manifest itself as an inability of the clock > to achieve > >>> atomic lock. If the CSAC’s telemetry string is monitored, the failure > >>> mode will show up as a Status Level 8. Microsemi’s investigation > into the > >>> problem uncovered three distinct root causes, although the symptom > the user > >>> observes is always a Status Level 8, regardless of which root cause > is the > >>> underlying issue. It is important to note that all three root causes > are > >>> process issues, not design issues. > >>> All three root causes have been addressed, and Microsemi is currently > >>> producing CSAC’s with all three fixes implemented. A full > re-qualification of > >>> the CSAC is also being done, to ensure that the fixes are effective. > CSAC’ > >>> s already in the field that exhibit this failure mode have been, and > will > >>> continue to be, replaced under warranty. > >>> > **************************************************************************** > >>> **************************************** > >>> > >>> > >>> In a message dated 4/24/2014 10:16:25 Pacific Daylight Time, > >>> lester@veenstras.com writes: > >>> > >>> > >>> Affected Products: Jackson Labs or Symmetricom time/frequency > reference > >>> boards based on Symmetricom chip scale atomic clock > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@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@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@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@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. >

I believe Microsemi still charges around $1500 for a CSAC. Some were offered on Ebay for around $500 I think some time ago.. Sent From iPhone On Apr 24, 2014, at 18:33, Jim Palfreyman <jim77742@gmail.com> wrote: > Out of curiosity, what's the current price for one of these for a time-nut > to play with? > > Regards, > > Jim Palfreyman > > > > On 25 April 2014 11:26, Said Jackson <saidjack@aol.com> wrote: > >> Hi Magnus, Bob, >> >> Thanks much for your kind words. >> >> The failure rate is thankfully so low that we are not greatly alarmed, and >> Microsemi has been a champ in resolving any failures with/for us when they >> did show up. We are awaiting the results of the full re-qualify that >> Microsemi is doing on the CSAC and were going to announce the issue at that >> time.. >> >> Bye, >> Said >> >> Sent From iPhone >> >> On Apr 24, 2014, at 17:41, Bob Camp <lists@rtty.us> wrote: >> >>> Hi >>> >>> I seem to have been in exactly the same position many times before and >> also wish you well in resolving this (as I’m *certain* will be the case). >>> >>> Bob >>> >>> On Apr 24, 2014, at 7:48 PM, Magnus Danielson < >> magnus@rubidium.dyndns.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Said, >>>> >>>> I recognize this situation so well. Feel with you on the issue and hope >> you find that it resolve itself nicely. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Magnus >>>> >>>> On 04/24/2014 10:50 PM, SAIDJACK@aol.com wrote: >>>>> Hello everyone, >>>>> >>>>> let me address the below claims and commentary which was posted without >>>>> first consulting with us. >>>>> >>>>> Microsemi has recently seen a slightly higher failure rate of the CSAC >>>>> oscillators than expected. A small percentage of our customers have >> been >>>>> adversely affected by this issue. We have been, and will continue to >> take care >>>>> of this issue when it happens to units we sold by doing a warranty >> exchange >>>>> of the CSAC for the affected customer unit, even if it should fall >> out of >>>>> its normal warranty period. >>>>> >>>>> We believe in supporting our customers to the maximum extent possible, >> and >>>>> of course want to deliver a product that has the highest level of >> quality >>>>> possible. That said, we must remember that the CSAC technology is a >> ground >>>>> breaking, never-before-done in commercial quantities, absolutely new >> type of >>>>> oscillator technology, and being at the forefront of such a technology >>>>> sometimes means there is a bit of a learning curve to deal with. This >> is one >>>>> of the main reasons why no one else in the world besides Microsemi >> makes >>>>> CSAC type products for commercial sale. >>>>> >>>>> So all in all, if a customer unit should get affected by this problem >> then >>>>> the issue will be addressed by us and Microsemi with a quick turn >> around >>>>> and a "no questions asked" approach, and we hope that this approach >> sets us >>>>> positively apart from the competition. >>>>> >>>>> Lastly, we received the below comments/explanation from Microsemi >> about >>>>> this issue which we have permission to share with you, and this >> should help >>>>> alleviate the problem for new orders. >>>>> >>>>> Sincerely, >>>>> Said >> **************************************************************************** >>>>> **************************************** >>>>> Some Symmetricom (now Microsemi) Chip Scale Atomic Clocks have shown a >>>>> failure mode that will manifest itself as an inability of the clock >> to achieve >>>>> atomic lock. If the CSAC’s telemetry string is monitored, the failure >>>>> mode will show up as a Status Level 8. Microsemi’s investigation >> into the >>>>> problem uncovered three distinct root causes, although the symptom >> the user >>>>> observes is always a Status Level 8, regardless of which root cause >> is the >>>>> underlying issue. It is important to note that all three root causes >> are >>>>> process issues, not design issues. >>>>> All three root causes have been addressed, and Microsemi is currently >>>>> producing CSAC’s with all three fixes implemented. A full >> re-qualification of >>>>> the CSAC is also being done, to ensure that the fixes are effective. >> CSAC’ >>>>> s already in the field that exhibit this failure mode have been, and >> will >>>>> continue to be, replaced under warranty. >> **************************************************************************** >>>>> **************************************** >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In a message dated 4/24/2014 10:16:25 Pacific Daylight Time, >>>>> lester@veenstras.com writes: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Affected Products: Jackson Labs or Symmetricom time/frequency >> reference >>>>> boards based on Symmetricom chip scale atomic clock >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@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@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@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@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@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there.

On 4/24/14, 6:26 PM, Said Jackson wrote: > Hi Magnus, Bob, > > Thanks much for your kind words. > > The failure rate is thankfully so low that we are not greatly alarmed, and Microsemi has been a champ in resolving any failures with/for us when they did show up. We are awaiting the results of the full re-qualify that Microsemi is doing on the CSAC and were going to announce the issue at that time.. > Sometimes it is the low failure rates which make it so troublesome. Everyone gets excited, but the vast majority don't have the problem, but then, every little anomaly or unexpected event prompts a "is it the failure"... Good luck.. JIm

Bringing a product as revolutionary as the CSAC at such a low price point is an amazing feat. It would be great if a product launch this innovative could go flawlessly but that is seldom the case. Problems are inevitable, but what defines a company in my humble opinion is how they address a problem if/when it does occur. Microsemi is showing class and professionalism in the way they are addressing this "Sudden Failure" issue. I am sure the exact problem will be isolated and resolved soon, and would have full confidence purchasing today knowing Microsemi 's outstanding staff and their commitment to customers. Thanks all at Microsemi for keeping the Time-Nuts in the loop. Good Luck; Thomas Knox > Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 20:32:06 -0700 > From: jimlux@earthlink.net > To: time-nuts@febo.com > Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Symmetricom chip scale atomic clock > > On 4/24/14, 6:26 PM, Said Jackson wrote: > > Hi Magnus, Bob, > > > > Thanks much for your kind words. > > > > The failure rate is thankfully so low that we are not greatly alarmed, and Microsemi has been a champ in resolving any failures with/for us when they did show up. We are awaiting the results of the full re-qualify that Microsemi is doing on the CSAC and were going to announce the issue at that time.. > > > > Sometimes it is the low failure rates which make it so troublesome. > Everyone gets excited, but the vast majority don't have the problem, but > then, every little anomaly or unexpected event prompts a "is it the > failure"... > > Good luck.. > > JIm > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there.

Jim, On 04/25/2014 05:32 AM, Jim Lux wrote: > On 4/24/14, 6:26 PM, Said Jackson wrote: >> Hi Magnus, Bob, >> >> Thanks much for your kind words. >> >> The failure rate is thankfully so low that we are not greatly alarmed, >> and Microsemi has been a champ in resolving any failures with/for us >> when they did show up. We are awaiting the results of the full >> re-qualify that Microsemi is doing on the CSAC and were going to >> announce the issue at that time.. >> > > Sometimes it is the low failure rates which make it so troublesome. > Everyone gets excited, but the vast majority don't have the problem, but > then, every little anomaly or unexpected event prompts a "is it the > failure"... When I started to see failures on a particular OCXO, I was alarmed. It ten turned out to be about 4% of all we bought, and I have checked them all myself. Seems that those that had problems have been detected or died out since we have not had any more reports. Single units is freak cases, but when several have issues within a short time, then we react to try to see the systematics. Let me tell you that the OCXO case was benign compared to fans that died much earlier than advertised. Guess if that vendor is now blacklisted. Another vendor got blacklisted as they did not take responsibility for the failures their poor design chip caused. The OCXO vendor handled the situation nicely, by replacing the broken units when requested. Failures happens. Vendors taking responsibility when failure happens are keepers, but you don't really feel motivated to deal with those that don't. That's why I'm happy to hear that Said have that support from Symmetricom/Microsemi. Jim's boxes is another story. Cheers, Magnus

Hi If you go back to the original EMXO work done by PTI and Bendix - they had a very similar issue with seals. They worked fine, ran through all the testing, met all the mil spec testing. After sitting on aging for months / years the seal would go “pop” (a nice loud pop) and the vacuum when away. This sort of thing does happen even when all the T’s have been crossed and every last i is dotted. Bob On Apr 24, 2014, at 11:32 PM, Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net> wrote: > On 4/24/14, 6:26 PM, Said Jackson wrote: >> Hi Magnus, Bob, >> >> Thanks much for your kind words. >> >> The failure rate is thankfully so low that we are not greatly alarmed, and Microsemi has been a champ in resolving any failures with/for us when they did show up. We are awaiting the results of the full re-qualify that Microsemi is doing on the CSAC and were going to announce the issue at that time.. >> > > Sometimes it is the low failure rates which make it so troublesome. Everyone gets excited, but the vast majority don't have the problem, but then, every little anomaly or unexpected event prompts a "is it the failure"... > > Good luck.. > > JIm > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there.