Attila Kinali

Hi, On 05/22/2016 12:11 AM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote: > > > On 5/21/2016 11:25 AM, Attila Kinali wrote: > >> I'd give a lot to read the design documents of the 5071. >> There must be a lot of knowhow and techniques in them. > > Read papers by me and my colleagues at the 1992 Frequency > Control Symposium. There is nothing else in the public > domain. >> >> >> What reference did you use to measure its absolute accuracy? >> Did you have access to the NIST standards? >> >> Attila Kinali > > At that time, HP had an ensemble of 5061B's that they > compared to LORAN and it was somehow traceable to NIST. > It was claimed to be the most accurate clock on the > west coast at the time. > > Also, one of the first pilot production units was > actually taken to Boulder and compared directly with > NIST's frequency reference. I remember that it was > off by a few parts in 10^13, after correcting for > the gravitation effect of Boulder at 5000 ft vs > Santa Clara at sea level. > > Over time, customers like NIST and the Naval Observatory > accumulated data on 5071A's to establish their accuracy. > At one time, 85% of the weight of the TAI (International > Atomic Timescale) consisted of 5071A's. Jack Kusters said > that, as a group, the 5071A's were accurate to around > 10^-14, because there were no significant systematic errors. > Hard to argue with that. Never the less NIST and USNO keeps them in temperature and humidity stabilized environment with well stabilized power. Just to keep such systematics out of major harm. Cheers, Magnus

> Tom > Impressive. Nice job. > > How would one go about to prove beyond a doubt in that experiment that 18ns > of phase shift in 24 hrs was truly caused by freq offset due to Relativity > and not by some other combination of environment and handling issues Hi Warren, I've given a lot thought on how to perform these clock experiments with precision and redundancy, and also how to report the results in a way that is educational and convincing. I don't know if one can ever "prove beyond doubt" since the second half of that equation belongs to another person. But one can go a long way to plan everything before and during an experiment to address the first half of the equation, the part you do control. In the ten years since I did the original Mt Rainier experiment I've gotten a lot of email from people seeking clarification and I think I've covered the bases pretty well. But one thing I always wanted to do was a repeat trip just to make sure it wasn't dumb luck the first time. Maybe a different method, maybe without kids, maybe a different mountain. And the PBS / Hawking invitation was the perfect excuse to fulfill that goal. The recent posting by Wulf about 5065A environmental sensitivities is a nice example of analyzing sources of instability, and double checking assumptions, etc. You asked specifically how would one go about to prove -- and I can help there. In the next posting I will answer your query with this detail: 1) The design, specs, reputation, and experience of 5071A clocks world-wide. 2) The measured performance of my own particular set of 5071A. 3) Independent corroboration using alternate time transfer methods. 4) Supporting evidence by relativity experiments, both similar and different. 5) Probability of accidental success. /tvb ----- Original Message ----- From: "ws at Yahoo via time-nuts" <time-nuts@febo.com> To: <time-nuts@febo.com> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 8:37 AM Subject: Re: [time-nuts] GENIUS by Stephen Hawking (PBS TV), > Tom > Impressive. Nice job. > > How would one go about to prove beyond a doubt in that experiment that 18ns > of phase shift in 24 hrs was truly caused by freq offset due to Relativity > and not by some other combination of environment and handling issues that > effected phase &/or freq once the identical clocks where separated and > operating at different temperatures, pressures, elevations, vibration, tilt > angles, power supply voltages, airflow, cosmic rays, ozone, or some other > unmeasured things that may be effecting the results? > > To increase *gravity* a lot more than a 7,000 ft altitude change, and > without changing the environment variables, could one set of the CS clocks > be put on a centrifuge, such as a fast spinning merry-go-round at a local > park? > > Anyone know what the 2G turn over effect, TC, etc, is of portable CS > standards? Ideally they should all be zero, but probable aren't. > > ws > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.

        Attila Kinali

Hi > On May 21, 2016, at 7:18 PM, Magnus Danielson <magnus@rubidium.dyndns.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 05/22/2016 12:11 AM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote: >> >> >> On 5/21/2016 11:25 AM, Attila Kinali wrote: >> >>> I'd give a lot to read the design documents of the 5071. >>> There must be a lot of knowhow and techniques in them. >> >> Read papers by me and my colleagues at the 1992 Frequency >> Control Symposium. There is nothing else in the public >> domain. >>> >>> >>> What reference did you use to measure its absolute accuracy? >>> Did you have access to the NIST standards? >>> >>> Attila Kinali >> >> At that time, HP had an ensemble of 5061B's that they >> compared to LORAN and it was somehow traceable to NIST. >> It was claimed to be the most accurate clock on the >> west coast at the time. >> >> Also, one of the first pilot production units was >> actually taken to Boulder and compared directly with >> NIST's frequency reference. I remember that it was >> off by a few parts in 10^13, after correcting for >> the gravitation effect of Boulder at 5000 ft vs >> Santa Clara at sea level. >> >> Over time, customers like NIST and the Naval Observatory >> accumulated data on 5071A's to establish their accuracy. >> At one time, 85% of the weight of the TAI (International >> Atomic Timescale) consisted of 5071A's. Jack Kusters said >> that, as a group, the 5071A's were accurate to around >> 10^-14, because there were no significant systematic errors. >> Hard to argue with that. > > Never the less NIST and USNO keeps them in temperature and humidity stabilized environment with well stabilized power. Just to keep such systematics out of major harm. But then again, not everybody can afford a cave to mount their gear in …. hmmm … maybe … Bob > > Cheers, > Magnus > _______________________________________________ > 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, On 05/22/2016 02:13 AM, Bob Camp wrote: > Hi > >> On May 21, 2016, at 7:18 PM, Magnus Danielson <magnus@rubidium.dyndns.org> wrote: >> Never the less NIST and USNO keeps them in temperature and humidity stabilized environment with well stabilized power. Just to keep such systematics out of major harm. > > But then again, not everybody can afford a cave to mount their gear in …. hmmm … maybe … Actually, I've seen it done. Cesiums and Masers and all, redundant and nice. Part of the Galileo back-up masterclock. Cheers, Magnus

Hi The real answer to the question lies in the scientific method its self. You never ever rely on any single experiment, no matter how well done. There is no single experiment that can ever prove a point “beyond any doubt” (yes that is deliberate). Instead the answer is to look at *all* of the experiments and to actively encourage multiple tests of a theory from many different directions. The theory only holds if *all* of the experiments support it. You get a nice big prize (named after that dynamite guy) if you disprove the prevailing theory. THAT is why you accept the theory rather than any single experiment. There never ever is any single experiment that will demonstrate any point against total doubt. Bob > On May 21, 2016, at 8:07 PM, Tom Van Baak <tvb@LeapSecond.com> wrote: > >> Tom >> Impressive. Nice job. >> >> How would one go about to prove beyond a doubt in that experiment that 18ns >> of phase shift in 24 hrs was truly caused by freq offset due to Relativity >> and not by some other combination of environment and handling issues > > Hi Warren, > > I've given a lot thought on how to perform these clock experiments with precision and redundancy, and also how to report the results in a way that is educational and convincing. I don't know if one can ever "prove beyond doubt" since the second half of that equation belongs to another person. But one can go a long way to plan everything before and during an experiment to address the first half of the equation, the part you do control. > > In the ten years since I did the original Mt Rainier experiment I've gotten a lot of email from people seeking clarification and I think I've covered the bases pretty well. But one thing I always wanted to do was a repeat trip just to make sure it wasn't dumb luck the first time. Maybe a different method, maybe without kids, maybe a different mountain. And the PBS / Hawking invitation was the perfect excuse to fulfill that goal. > > The recent posting by Wulf about 5065A environmental sensitivities is a nice example of analyzing sources of instability, and double checking assumptions, etc. > > You asked specifically how would one go about to prove -- and I can help there. In the next posting I will answer your query with this detail: > > 1) The design, specs, reputation, and experience of 5071A clocks world-wide. > 2) The measured performance of my own particular set of 5071A. > 3) Independent corroboration using alternate time transfer methods. > 4) Supporting evidence by relativity experiments, both similar and different. > 5) Probability of accidental success. > > /tvb > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "ws at Yahoo via time-nuts" <time-nuts@febo.com> > To: <time-nuts@febo.com> > Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 8:37 AM > Subject: Re: [time-nuts] GENIUS by Stephen Hawking (PBS TV), > > >> Tom >> Impressive. Nice job. >> >> How would one go about to prove beyond a doubt in that experiment that 18ns >> of phase shift in 24 hrs was truly caused by freq offset due to Relativity >> and not by some other combination of environment and handling issues that >> effected phase &/or freq once the identical clocks where separated and >> operating at different temperatures, pressures, elevations, vibration, tilt >> angles, power supply voltages, airflow, cosmic rays, ozone, or some other >> unmeasured things that may be effecting the results? >> >> To increase *gravity* a lot more than a 7,000 ft altitude change, and >> without changing the environment variables, could one set of the CS clocks >> be put on a centrifuge, such as a fast spinning merry-go-round at a local >> park? >> >> Anyone know what the 2G turn over effect, TC, etc, is of portable CS >> standards? Ideally they should all be zero, but probable aren't. >> >> ws >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Tom, Nice photos. Looks like you guys had a great time. Cheers, Magnus On 05/21/2016 09:09 PM, Tom Van Baak wrote: > Mike, > > For the episode itself it was probably unnecessary to show that zeroing or syncing step. But of course it's important to me, the original doubting Thomas, and is covered in all the data analysis. > > For you, or others who want to read more about the experiment, scroll down to the time dilation plots: > > http://leapsecond.com/great2016a/photos.htm > > /tvb > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mike Feher" <mfeher@eozinc.com> > To: <warrensjmail-one@yahoo.com>; "'Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement'" <time-nuts@febo.com> > Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 11:03 AM > Subject: Re: [time-nuts] GENIUS by Stephen Hawking (PBS TV), > > >> I too enjoyed the show as well as Tom's part in it. However call me "doubting Thomas" or in this case Mike, I have the same concerns as expressed by "ws". Also, an initial comparison of the two used, at low altitude, to show an unmeasurable difference would have been helpful. All that aside it was great, and, I am not smart enough to understand it all anyway. Regards - Mike >> >> Mike B. Feher, EOZ Inc. >> 89 Arnold Blvd. >> Howell, NJ, 07731 >> 732-886-5960 office >> 908-902-3831 cell >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: time-nuts [mailto:time-nuts-bounces@febo.com] On Behalf Of ws at Yahoo via time-nuts >> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 11:37 AM >> To: time-nuts@febo.com >> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] GENIUS by Stephen Hawking (PBS TV), >> >> Tom >> Impressive. Nice job. >> >> How would one go about to prove beyond a doubt in that experiment that 18ns of phase shift in 24 hrs was truly caused by freq offset due to Relativity and not by some other combination of environment and handling issues that effected phase &/or freq once the identical clocks where separated and operating at different temperatures, pressures, elevations, vibration, tilt angles, power supply voltages, airflow, cosmic rays, ozone, or some other unmeasured things that may be effecting the results? >> >> To increase *gravity* a lot more than a 7,000 ft altitude change, and without changing the environment variables, could one set of the CS clocks be put on a centrifuge, such as a fast spinning merry-go-round at a local park? >> >> Anyone know what the 2G turn over effect, TC, etc, is of portable CS standards? Ideally they should all be zero, but probable aren't. >> >> ws >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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. >