[ntp:questions] Re: Use of "Atomic Clock" Nomenclature

fm at nowhere.invalid fm at nowhere.invalid
Fri Jan 20 13:48:44 UTC 2006

Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl at rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote:
> "Max Power" <mikehack at u.washington.edu> writes:

>> Use of "Atomic Clock" Nomenclature

> For further confusion, in Germany we have two words, like nuclear and atom:
> Clocks are usually "atomic clocks", while power plants are either "atomic
> power plant" (Atomkraftwerk), or "nuclear power plant" (Kernkraftwerk),
> depending on which political party is currently active (I guess).

> Strictly speaking, there's no clock without atoms, so just like an "iron
> clock" or "plastic clock", the are all "atomic clocks", right? ;-)

> What makes me nervous on the subject is that some vendors leave the
> imagination that their receiver has the same accuracy that the remote
> reference clock (less than a second in some hundred years). Most people do not
> know that stock DCF77 receivers just turn on the receiver once to a few times
> per day to save battery power. This makes the issue worse.

> Regards,
> Ulrich
> P.S. Now try to take your declared "nuclear clock" into a plane to the USA and
> see what will happen ;-)

It seems that Cs clocks are  now  forbidden  to  fly
because cs133 is highly flamable (or  even  does  it
burn spontaneously ?) in the ambiant air.

Before that, Cs  clocks  traveling  for  calibration
purposes were conservatively declared as "electronic
-- francois meyer

More information about the questions mailing list