Slashdot Mirror


Government Funded Atomic Clock On a Chip

An anonymous reader writes "Today most applications that require accurate atomic clock readings — from sorting separately routed telecommunications packets to timing simultaneous demolition charges — usually refer to signals from global positioning systems (GPS). For applications where GPS is unavailable, such as indoors, underground, undersea or on the battlefield where electronic jamming is present, large, heavy, power hungry hardware atomic clocks were needed. Now an atomic clock-on-a-chip is available that is the result of 10 years of government-funded research and development. The chip is not cheap — $1,500 — but it costs less than conventional atomic clocks and the price is sure to go down as manufacturing gears up to meet demand from military applications."

134 comments

  1. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

    Psst... don't look now, but there is radioactive material in your smoke alarm.

  2. Old news by tibit · · Score: 1

    The original press release is from January 18th 2011. Just sayin'. Of course this is a very nifty device and all that.

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  3. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by Arlet · · Score: 2

    From TFA:

    The secret to the new atomic clock on a chip is a solid-state laser illuminating a tiny container holding normal non-radioactive cesium vapor

  4. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    He mentioned that, but he's trolling anyways - look at his sig.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  5. OXCOs are cheap and common right now by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    For those of us who need accurate clocks and don't have $1500 to spend, highly stable temp controlled oscillator chips are cheap and common right now. (Search eBay for OXCO)

    For example, this one (which I'm using) is accurate in the PPB range:

    1. Re:OXCOs are cheap and common right now by imlepid · · Score: 2

      Yes, you can use OCXOs, but they aren't technically atomic clocks. Further, an OCXO (like the one you showed) requires 1.5W, which doesn't sound like much, but the unit linked to above needs only 100mW. A true atomic clock (a rubidium oscillator, for example) is significantly larger than this unit and also draws much more power (11W, steady state).

      All things told, though, a OCXO or rubidium frequency standard from eBay should be good enough for most users.

    2. Re:OXCOs are cheap and common right now by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Well, that claims 20 ppb, so that's ~ 1 part in 10^8. If the article mentioned the stability of this chip, I missed it, but other cesium atomic clocks are stable to 1 part in 10^14. So they're literally orders of magnitude more precise.

      But if you 10^8 is good enough, then $20 sounds like a great deal!

      I'm figuring they wanted to develop this chip for applications where currently caesium or other atomic clocks are required, though.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    3. Re:OXCOs are cheap and common right now by kaiser423 · · Score: 2

      The chip from the article is ~100x more accurate and consumes 1/10th the power and is similar size of smaller for ~75x the price.

      Pretty big leap if you ask me, and I know lots of people that will be looking to utilize these. I expect in the near future that the pricing will drop significantly, since that pricing was just for the initial batch run.

    4. Re:OXCOs are cheap and common right now by blair1q · · Score: 1

      I know lots of people that will be looking to utilize these.

      For what?

      I don't know of much that needs timing precision better than a few ppb. If it does, it probably needs a redesign. Because even with a few ppb, the chances the clock is simply set wrong will be higher than the chance the drift will take it out of the valid range, and being robust enough to handle either case is probably worth the $1500.

    5. Re:OXCOs are cheap and common right now by Arlet · · Score: 1

      I guess that most people requiring these clocks are not really interesting in having a correct absolute time, but rather a very low drift to allow measuring intervals at really high precision.

      And if absolute time matters, you can always calibrate it with another atomic clock, or GPS signal.

    6. Re:OXCOs are cheap and common right now by mellon · · Score: 1

      They're really handy for detecting time dilation caused by variations in the gravitational field. It wouldn't surprise me if, when the price comes down, people start using them to survey construction sites for geological stability. Try doing that with some wimpy OXCO that's only accurate to a few parts per billion.

    7. Re:OXCOs are cheap and common right now by blair1q · · Score: 1

      They're going to need a thermometer that goes to parts per trillion, then, too, because the Earth reacts to the heat of the sun in a way that looks just like low-level geological instability.

      As for time dilation of any kind, there are maybe five people (all of them Doctors of some sort) who care in anything other than a merit-badge sort of way.

    8. Re:OXCOs are cheap and common right now by careysub · · Score: 1

      They're really handy for detecting time dilation caused by variations in the gravitational field....

      And the dilation caused by motion. Note that one of the organizations developing this is Draper Laboratories - home of the world's best inertial navigation systems. This would be a crucial component for a new compact, low cost (as military equipment goes) ultra-accurate inertial guidance system for weapons that is NOT dependent on GPS. Ever heard of GPS jammers?

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    9. Re:OXCOs are cheap and common right now by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 4, Funny

      As for time dilation of any kind, there are maybe five people (all of them Doctors of some sort) who care in anything other than a merit-badge sort of way.

      Who's one of them?

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
    10. Re:OXCOs are cheap and common right now by Sooner+Boomer · · Score: 1

      Who's one of them?

      Yes, that's right, Dr. Who.

      --
      Chaos maximizes locally around me.
    11. Re:OXCOs are cheap and common right now by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      The people who design GPS satellites for a start. And I imagine other satellites requiring precise timing information out beyond the Earth's gravitational field.

    12. Re:OXCOs are cheap and common right now by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 1

      They should just pull that info out of the Vortex. I take no responsibility for unforeseen events, such as future satellites showing up violently on your doorstep. :)

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
    13. Re:OXCOs are cheap and common right now by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 1

      Also, the key to my post is in the intonation.

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
    14. Re:OXCOs are cheap and common right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, he is.

    15. Re:OXCOs are cheap and common right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Matt Smith, David Tennant, Christopher Eccleston, Paul McGann, Sylvester McCoy. That's five - I can give you six more.

    16. Re:OXCOs are cheap and common right now by Twisted64 · · Score: 1

      As for time dilation of any kind, there are maybe five people (all of them Doctors of some sort) who care in anything other than a merit-badge sort of way.

      Who's one of them?

      Who's all of them!

      --
      Consciousness is a myth. Trust me.
    17. Re:OXCOs are cheap and common right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      BZZZZZZZZZZZZT!

      Thank you for playing!

      You're wrong, though.

      Time Dilation must be accounted for in GPS systems! If you use GPS, you're using systems that need to account for time dilation. Here's an explanation

      Because of relativistic effects, clocks on-board each GPS satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38).

      This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly worthless for navigation in a very short time. This kind of accumulated error is akin to measuring my location while standing on my front porch in Columbus, Ohio one day, and then making the same measurement a week later and having my GPS receiver tell me that my porch and I are currently about 5000 meters in the air somewhere over Detroit.

      The engineers who designed the GPS system included these relativistic effects when they designed and deployed the system. For example, to counteract the General Relativistic effect once on orbit, they slowed down the ticking frequency of the atomic clocks before they were launched so that once they were in their proper orbit stations their clocks would appear to tick at the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations. Further, each GPS receiver has built into it a microcomputer that (among other things) performs the necessary relativistic calculations when determining the user's location.

    18. Re:OXCOs are cheap and common right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

    19. Re:OXCOs are cheap and common right now by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      The on-board GPS clocks are corrected for time dilation due to their orbital velocity. By extension, everyone who uses GPS benefits from and has an interest in that being accounted for.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    20. Re:OXCOs are cheap and common right now by tibit · · Score: 2

      Inertial navigation needs that sort of accuracy. Low-drift, high-resolution laser gyros are IIRC as good as and no better than their time bases are. Drift in reference frequency causes changes in gain...

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    21. Re:OXCOs are cheap and common right now by leighklotz · · Score: 1

      For those of us who need accurate clocks and don't have $1500 to spend, highly stable temp controlled oscillator chips are cheap and common right now. (Search eBay for OXCO)

      For example, this one (which I'm using) is accurate in the PPB range:

      An OXCO has excellent phase noise and short term stability, but drifts. A Cs reference has better long term stability. An Rb device has pretty good long term stability once you factor out the linear "aging" (i.e., a constant change). GPS-DO combine GPS receivers with firmware and discipline another oscillator, usually a quartz crystal because of the low phase noise.

      So the right way to compare these various references is with an Allan deviation plot, which rates the stability across different time scales.

      For this new Symmetricom product, they list the following Stability in their Allan deviation chart (no plot, hmmm):
      Tau = 1s ADEV = 2e-10
      Tau = 10s ADEV = 7e-11
      Tau = 100s ADEV = 2e-11
      Tau = 1000s ADEV = 7e-12

      They similarly give phase noise, aging, initial calibration accuracy, etc.

      FEI's 5680A Rb product at http://freqelec.com/rb_osc_fe5680a.html shows their ADEV plot, so I squinted at it and read these values:
      Tau = 1s ADEV ~ 3e-11
      Tau = 10s ADEV ~ 3e-12
      Tau = 100s ADEV ~ 7e-13
      Tau = 1000S ADEV ~ 3e-13

      Further than that (days) and you start running into aging corrections.

      An Rb unit you buy off eBay isn't likely to perform like this; you'd need a temperature-controlled room, and need to keep it away from 60Hz fields (the magnetic field is used to "tune" the transition, I think due to the anomalous Zeeman effect, but I could be wrong). Also, a NIST scientist told me that gravity effects are strong as well, so it must be calibrated at the same altitude as use to get these 10^-12 and better numbers.

      Still, for about $100 for either an Rb or a GPS-DO, they're pretty good. The OXCO is pretty good too, but beats the Rb or GPS-DO only in phase noise. (Oh, and cost and power consumption.)

    22. Re:OXCOs are cheap and common right now by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the next iPhone will include one, and prices will plummet.

    23. Re:OXCOs are cheap and common right now by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      For what?

      If you can put an atomic clock into a GPS unit, you can match the timing signal on more than just the number pattern. You can match on the square wave train. This allows you to get into millimeter accuracy. For use in car navigation, not neccessary. But if you want to do survey work, it could be very usefull.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    24. Re:OXCOs are cheap and common right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dr. John Smith comes to mind.

  6. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by 0123456 · · Score: 2

    But it's ATOMIC!

  7. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    > ...there is radioactive material in your smoke alarm.

    But none in this clock.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  8. frequency hopping and better navigation. by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I can think of two to uses off the top of my head. The first is for really fast frequency hopping radios. The rate at which they can hop from one to the next has got to be in some measure limited to how accurate the clock they use is.
    And the next one would be improved navigation. You could use these with ground stations and provide extremely accurate navigation and you could use more powerful transmitters so they would be harder to jam.
    Now if they could uses these to put a time signature on every radio, tv, and cell tower You could improve navigation in areas where GPS doesn't work so well. Like in buildings. cites with lots of tall buildings, or areas with lots of tree cover.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:frequency hopping and better navigation. by TheCouchPotatoFamine · · Score: 1

      i wonder (and I am NOT saying anything educated but I wonder) if you could simplify the GPS signal (which currently has to send time, and that is used to get distance) if you had an accurate clock in the receiver. If you could simplify the signal, could you make GPS more accurate or have much better reach in terms of reception?

      i'm sure there are tons of uses for a good atomic clock, but this leapt to mind. If someone can say why i'm wrong, it would teach me much :)

      --
      CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
    2. Re:frequency hopping and better navigation. by Arlet · · Score: 3, Informative

      Having a local known good time would reduce the GPS error by itself. It would also allow 3D position to be determined with 3 visible satellites instead of 4.

    3. Re:frequency hopping and better navigation. by blair1q · · Score: 1

      At some point "really fast frequency hopping" becomes its own modulation trope. I.e., you aren't using the frequencies you're hopping on as the carrier, you're using the pattern of your hopping. So maybe. And I call dibs on the prior art if frequency-hopping-modulation works. We just can't call it FHM or nobody will get any work done when googling for the literature.

      DGPS takes the slop out of GPSS, and I'm not sure if one of these chips could possibly improve on it, though maybe, by providing a base reference.

      I'm not sure how having a transmitter on a tower is going to help when you can't read a GPS satellite. If you're among buildings, you might as well just use a map.

    4. Re:frequency hopping and better navigation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your message raises one philosophical question though: what was first, your message or your signature ?

    5. Re:frequency hopping and better navigation. by mortonda · · Score: 1

      Not being very familiar with relativity and all that, at what precision and time frame might relativistic effects cause this to become unsynchronized?

    6. Re:frequency hopping and better navigation. by TheCouchPotatoFamine · · Score: 1

      That makes sense! I appreciate slashdot for these little things. I have read about GPS, but didn't derive these two characteristics. I remember something about quantum entanglement one day allowing for a more sensitive read of when the signal arrived, I have read about WAAS.. and when the prices of atomic clock chips come down I hope they are used in just this way.

      //Satnav has always fascinated me. I use a Miomap-Digiwalker flashed with a WinCE shell featuring IGO8 (best nav soft on standalone GPS's in my opinion) and am always looking for even better solutions. I don't want to rely on 3G for maps as I've used them on roadtrips far from cell towers, so that rules out many newer devices.

      --
      CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
    7. Re:frequency hopping and better navigation. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      Not being very familiar with relativity and all that, at what precision and time frame might relativistic effects cause this to become unsynchronized?

      Hmm, rough estimate says 10E-14 scale error will be detectable at >150 km/hour.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    8. Re:frequency hopping and better navigation. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      unsynchronized in relativity to what? GPS sats are moving pretty fast and don't get unsynced.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    9. Re:frequency hopping and better navigation. by Arlet · · Score: 1

      As long as you know your speed, it's not a problem to compensate for relativistic effects. GPS systems must already do that anyway.

    10. Re:frequency hopping and better navigation. by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yup. One of the barriers to postprocessing is local clock inaccuracy - so having a local atomic clock would be great for survey-grade GPS units.

      And as you stated - if receiver clock offset is 0, then you don't need to solve for it, and can get 3D position with 3 sats instead of 4. The actual effect of an inaccurate clock on the error is harder to determine - I have a feeling that with a reasonable quality local crystal oscillator (good enough not to cause cycle slips in the measured carrier phase, etc.) it's insignificant compared to ionospheric error and RF noise in the pseudoranges, along with multipath. The new L2C civilian signal will help some of these issues.

      A highly accurate local clock might also make dead reckoning in a blockage situation (urban canyons, tunnels, etc) and signal reacquisition after blockage goes away faster.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    11. Re:frequency hopping and better navigation. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      GPS uses a signal that has poor penetration and is also very weak. TV, Radio, and Cell signals are lower frequency and penetrate buildings better.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    12. Re:frequency hopping and better navigation. by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 2

      The also do have a relativity correction build in. Something of the order of micro seconds per week IIRC.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    13. Re:frequency hopping and better navigation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the accuracy stated in the article, one microsecond error per day is something to compare with, similar drift requires you to move roughly 5.2 kilometers per... second. So, not awfully big risk in practice. Sure, much smaller speeds can be observed through sufficient measurements, but analysing this all and understanding real-world behavior of different time sources have gets pretty complicated for a layperson pretty quickly.

    14. Re:frequency hopping and better navigation. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      If I understand the math right, it'd also let you almost determine 2D position with two rather than three, which means faster locks. I say almost, because the equasions would actually provide two solutions - but you can handle that in software, by using the last-known-good measurement to determine which of those two is correct.

    15. Re:frequency hopping and better navigation. by lip_spork · · Score: 0

      Well here's another...

      Navigators on the open ocean will be able to accurately determine their longitude by syncing a clock with Big Ben back in London. Latitude can be known with a good astrolabe, but longitude has always been a problem.

    16. Re:frequency hopping and better navigation. by woolpert · · Score: 1

      Except this isn't a problem that needs solved.

      Kinematic GPS solves position using the carrier instead of the (time) code. Since the carrier length is ~19cm you're instantly much tighter than is possible solving with the time code.

      And, as others above me have said, (regardless if you're carrier or code locked) a 3D solution needs four birds visible because of the receiver's inaccurate clock. At best an atomic clock on the receiver means one less variable to solve for = one less bird needed. Today when we have a full constellation that is just about never a problem unless you're in absolutely horrible terrain with very high horizons, and in that situation your PDOP is going to be so bad as to render moot any positional accuracy gains seen by better clocking.

      Not to mention the Russian GLONASS birds up there, and Europe's if they ever get their act together, and the L2C frequency... point is there are lots of inexpensive ways to increase accuracy which don't rely on an expensive clock chip.

    17. Re:frequency hopping and better navigation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At some point "really fast frequency hopping" becomes its own modulation trope. I.e., you aren't using the frequencies you're hopping on as the carrier, you're using the pattern of your hopping. So maybe. And I call dibs on the prior art if frequency-hopping-modulation works..

      I've got an idea for what to call it: CDMA

    18. Re:frequency hopping and better navigation. by Agripa · · Score: 1

      I can think of two to uses off the top of my head. The first is for really fast frequency hopping radios. The rate at which they can hop from one to the next has got to be in some measure limited to how accurate the clock they use is.

      Frequency hopping spread spectrum, direct sequence spread spectrum, and TDMA systems can phase lock their local oscillators together so absolute accuracy is not required. Performance is only limited by local oscillator phase noise. An atomic oscillator would help with synchronization from a cold start but the standby power cost is pretty high.

      Atomic oscillators do not particularly have better phase noise performance than crystal or especially YIG oscillators. Crystal oscillators are often phased locked to a GPS or atomic source allowing the best characteristics of both.

  9. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by _0xd0ad · · Score: 2

    I didn't even notice that he mentioned smoke detectors. And, nah, I'm pretty sure he's legitimately nuts.

  10. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pssst.. You naturally produce 4000 radioactive particles per second.

  11. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

    I would have guessed as much.

  12. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've managed to block the radiation from beaming down into my head. Is there anything tin foil can't do?

  13. There goes the neighborhood.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like all of our children will be asking what they mean in "old" movies when they say "Synchronize watches!"

    1. Re:There goes the neighborhood.... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      WTF is a 'watch', gramps?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  14. Government-Funded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Government Funded Atomic Clock On a Chip

    Is a hyphen too much to ask for? The headline states that in the past the government funded an atomic clock on a chip. It should read "Government-Funded" i.e. funded by the government.

    1. Re:Government-Funded by blueg3 · · Score: 2

      Only if the entire headline is simply a noun phrase: an atomic clock (on a chip) that is government-funded.

      If, on the other hand, the headline is saying that the government funded the development of an atomic clock (on a chip), then the lack of hyphen is acceptable.

      Both are acceptable, since in order to produce a government-funded clock, at some point, the government must have funded the clock.

  15. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Umm, not all smoke detectors are of the electrostatic variety. There are types that use an IR laser to check for particulates and smoke based on occlusion.

    Also, for some fun facts, see The XKCD Radiation Dosage Chart! If you worry about smoke detectors, you'll be surprised at how much radiation you get from living in a brick house...

    --
    Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
  16. Cheap once mass produced by Teun · · Score: 1

    "The chip is not cheap--$1500--but it costs less than conventional atomic clocks and the price is sure to go down as manufacturing gears up to meet demand from military applications start using it."

    For the price to come down we'll have to wait for the Chinese to finish tooling their new plant.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    1. Re:Cheap once mass produced by blair1q · · Score: 1

      How long do we have to wait?

      Please express your answer to 15 significant figures.

  17. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by _0xd0ad · · Score: 3, Funny

    This orange represents your head. This tinfoil represents... well, tinfoil. This microwave represents... well, just watch.

  18. Re:Can I Harvest the U-235 In The Chip by hawguy · · Score: 1

    Since there's no U-235 in it, you certainly may do so. Just like you can harvest the Unicorns in the chip and send them to meat processing plants. (which otherwise would be illegal due to the Unicorn horn trade that's been depleting the stocks of wild Unicorns)

  19. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    atomic == NUCLEAR == WILL GIVE LIMITLESS ENERGY NOOOOOOO!!!!! Shouldnt happen == NOOOOOOOO NUCLEAR

    just to avoid the caps filter
    Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
    Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
    Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

  20. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by ByOhTek · · Score: 4, Informative

    (1) most atomic clocks don't use anything radioactive, they use vibrations of cesium atoms. Given how up tight you are, something that vibrates might be useful to you.
    (2) don't eat bananas.

    --
    Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
  21. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by longacre · · Score: 2

    "The secret to the new atomic clock on a chip is a solid-state laser illuminating a tiny container holding normal non-radioactive cesium vapor."

  22. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1
    Also from TFA:

    The laser interrogates the cesium gas, causing its atoms to vibrate at a precise frequency that can be sensed and used to keep the clock accurate within a millionth of a second per day.

    So the laser simply asks the cesium what time it is.

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  23. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by mehrotra.akash · · Score: 2

    Atomic == Nuclear

    Be afraid of it !!

  24. No! not Symmetricon! by NixieBunny · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Symmetricon has been buying up all the other precision clock makers, and is now a monopoly. They can and do charge whatever they like for such products.

    --
    The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
    1. Re:No! not Symmetricon! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Symmetricon has been buying up all the other precision clock makers, and is now a monopoly. They can and do charge whatever they like for such products.

      Goddamnit. Do you have to go do this? Here we have an interesting, techy article and you go rain on everybody's parade by trotting out some little factoid that either makes the tech responsible for the imminent demise of the planet or at the very least points out some totally unsavory bit about the company that manufacturers it. Can't you just leave it at Apple, Microsoft and Google?

      Give us a break for just a bit, will you?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:No! not Symmetricon! by NixieBunny · · Score: 1

      I'd love to give it a break, but every time I turn around they've ruined another perfectly good product designed by someone else.

      --
      The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
    3. Re:No! not Symmetricon! by satan666 · · Score: 2

      I know what you're saying and all but this is bigger that you initially thought.
      Let's dig a bit deeper.

      When GPS first came out (and President Clinton allowed for the superior GPS signal to be released to the public), we all thought: Wow! Finally!
      As EE's we thought the time had come for really, really cheap GPS based NTP servers and timing products. You know, like in the $100.00 range.

      Who gives a fuck? Well, actually we all do. We are all paying for NTP synchronization hardware because all major server farms and even small
      places need a precise, non-interruptable timing standard.

      So, Symmetricom has been buying out everyone who was in the business. The only people left are a few specialty shops. And Symmetricom is charging B-I-G bucks for their machines.

      So, congrats to Symmetricom for developing this product. I hope the sell millions. However, one has to wonder if this would cost in the $100.00 range
      if 10-20 companies were in the running.

      Think about this: All timing is moving to very precise standards with the 1x10^(-14) short term drift range.

      This will be available from $1.00 off the shelf products in 20 years I figure. The thing is, we really need it now!

      We should not depend on one vendor for this. It is too important.

      Having said that, I am afraid that the Chinese might be on the verge of releasing just such a product. They rely on high precision timing, just as much as we do, and they really don't like depending on others for stuff like this.

      Cheers

    4. Re:No! not Symmetricon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, there is Spectracom (http://www.spectracomcorp.com/) who competes with Symmetricon. They have a long standing place in that market.

  25. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by blair1q · · Score: 1

    Your post is emitting more radiation than those chips will.

  26. I'm not impressed by drkoemans · · Score: 1

    This guy has had a real atomic wristwatch for at least a decade. http://leapsecond.com/pages/atomic-bill/

    1. Re:I'm not impressed by NixieBunny · · Score: 1

      Er, his brother, who's a weightlifter, has it.

      --
      The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
  27. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by blair1q · · Score: 1

    That just means we can't interrupt it.

    Ever.

  28. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by datapharmer · · Score: 1

    Yeah, and I put my geiger counter in the microwave to make sure it wasn't bugged, lo and behold it went wild with radiation warnings. I think they are storing old nuclear waste in new microwaves!

    --
    Get a web developer
  29. Such progress! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - Takes a lickin' and keeps on clickin' (for those with geiger counters)
    - Indiglo feature added at no cost
    - First watch to be seen on restricted-exports list
    - #1 excuse for tardiness changes from "My watch was slow" to "I've got radiation sickness"
    - Watch is very compact, but power source is prohibitively large (and requires ~20 years to permit)

    (yes, I realize the thing isn't actually radioactive)

  30. Re:Waiting for the trolls by LordStormes · · Score: 1

    CmdrTaco, can we please add a feature that automatically blocks any post with that word in it? There is absolutely no useful context for that word in 2011.

  31. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by rarel · · Score: 1

    I thought she was Polish, not Indian... *confused*

  32. Has to be said... by LordStormes · · Score: 1

    It's an ATOM processor.

  33. Cheaper than a Chronograph by theJML · · Score: 1

    Seriously, this is much cheaper than some of the Wrist borne Chronographs... Tag Heuer look out!

    Seriously though, I mean, sure you'll need a few more electronics and such to get it to show time, but over all, it wouldn't be a stretch to have a fully functional wall clock run off of atomic precision. Even better yet, it should have a SoC that'll hook it to your wifi network and advertise the time to anything in the area, and be accessible as part of the ntp pool.I know entire data centers that would be happy with something like that as a 1/2 U server, and I'm guessing it won't add much over and above this price, though someone will charge a premium for it anyway.

    --
    -=JML=-
    1. Re:Cheaper than a Chronograph by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      I expect to see the atomic wall clock in the SkyMall catalog soon (since the Sharper Image is a shell of its former self).

  34. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol

  35. Re: Relate article, does NOT obsolete GPS by gstrickler · · Score: 1

    The title of the other submission "Submission: Atomic Clock-on-a-Chip Obsoletes GPS" is inaccurate. This does not obsolete GPS at all. It makes GPS unnecessary as a precision time source in some applications, but GPS = Global Positioning System, and this doesn't provide any positioning information, it's just highly accurate and stable time source. GPS also provides that, but it provides that from multiple satellites with well defined locations. Using the time differences from 3 or more GPS satellites, you can calculate a position on the earth. So, this is an alternative to GPS for systems that only need a highly accurate and stable time source, but not for those that need the positioning information you can get from GPS.

    That it's small, non-radioactive, relatively inexpensive (for an atomic clock), and relatively low power offers many new possible uses. However, it's still far more expensive than a GPS receiver, so it won't replace GPS (or WWV/WWVB) as a time source for mainstream purposes until the cost comes down by at least a factor of 100, more likely it'll have to come down by a factor of 500 ($3) before it sees any mass adoption.

    --
    make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
  36. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by Americano · · Score: 1

    Thank you for your radiation, Madam Curry!

    Does this mean I should stop eating Thai and Indian food?

  37. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by mellon · · Score: 1

    IR laser-based smoke detectors work really well in combination with the kind that detect combustion, but they both trigger based on different signals, and it's not uncommon for one to go off and the other to not go off. So you really can't get by with just the IR-based detectors, unfortunately. But as you say, the exposure is quite low. You're more likely to die of a fire than a cancer caused by the radioactive material encapsulated in a smoke detector.

  38. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by mr1911 · · Score: 1

    Don't go outside. "They" have made the atmosphere full of radioactive particles.

    "They" being all those damn stars. Other parts of the cosmos are in on the conspiracy too! They are out to get us.

    --
    This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
    Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
  39. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by mr1911 · · Score: 1

    More when you eat beans.

    --
    This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
    Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
  40. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by nabsltd · · Score: 3, Funny

    So the laser simply asks the cesium what time it is.

    ...millions of times per second. Sort of like the world's most annoying child:

    "What time is it? Are we there yet? What time is it?"

  41. Failed humor not troll ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

    Trolling? I'd say it was a failed attempt at humor. Now whether the writer or the audience failed I can't say ... on second thought, it is the author's failure if the audience does not get it. "Thank you for your radiation, Madam Curry!" was perhaps too subtle. :-)

    1. Re:Failed humor not troll ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read his post history and profile.
      Quack Chiropractor (redundant?)

  42. Laser implies interrogation ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

    So the laser simply asks the cesium what time it is.

    No, I'd say that when someone is pointing a laser at you then you are being interrogated. :-)

  43. Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have an number of network connectivity points at various telco hotels around the world, and in each we run an ntp server for various reasons. We had initially planned to use GPS clocks, but when you're in someone elses building, getting roof access is difficult/impossible. that leaves us Dependant on external providers for time, when we would much prefer to have a source for ourselves.

    It would be great to be able to buy a 1u device with an atomic clock in it for each of our presences - I can't find any commercial products built around this yet, but I'll be keeping an eye out.

    1. Re:Interesting by rzoss · · Score: 1

      (I work @ Symmetricom) 1u time source? They've got that in a few configs. Call Symmetricom's sales for info. The CSAC is about 1"x1"x.5" and optimized for more mobile applications. You probably want a Rubidium clock of some flavor.

  44. Good news for TOF by werepants · · Score: 1

    I imagine an uber-accurate clock like this could have big implications for proximity sensors that rely on time-of-flight (sonar, some lasers) and also for local, non-GPS positioning systems.

    1. Re:Good news for TOF by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Good for measuring distance - there will be applications in surveying, building stress monitoring, geological measurements. Sonar doesn't go fast enough to benefit from the increased precision (Not even in water), but with this you could more easily check the placement of equipment on large construction sites via laser measurement.

  45. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Atomic == Nuclear

    Be afraid of it !!

    Also, neither of those things necessarily means "radioactive".


    BUT THEY'RE ALL TRYING TO KILL YOU WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

  46. Re:Waiting for the trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    01101110 01101001 01100111 01100111 01100101 01110010

    Decode the binary to win the prize...

    (yes, there is a point to my post; the magic "feature that automatically blocks any post with that word in it" is called your amazing brain... if you can't deal with a sequence of ASCII, you have problems.)

  47. How is this special? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-09/oonr-oon090203.php

    Atomic clock that fits in your hand, but not quite a chip, from 2003. How is this a giant leap ahead?

  48. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

    I wonder what would happen if you overclocked it? :)

    --
    If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
  49. Yeah, but can it run Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine a Beowolf cluster of these clocks!

  50. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by lucifuge31337 · · Score: 1

    So you really can't get by with just the IR-based detectors, unfortunately.

    Quick! Somebody tell the International Code Council and the 95% of business and home owners that have had smokes installed in the last 10 years!

    Where are you getting this idea from? The standard coverage accepted smoke is a photoelectric and has been for quite some time.

    Why, yes, I am a part time code enforcement official who's jurisdiction just happens to be fire.

    --
    Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
  51. Re:Waiting for the trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can see your point that basically all, if not all posts containing the word are trolls / spam, but I can't imagine the trolls / spammers would take more than 27 seconds to ommit/replace/obscuvate it were it blocked, unless done very subtley.

  52. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    Anything that is ATOMIC is likely to explode and kill us all, according to all the news reports. If these become cheap, we are going to be seeing cities blowing up on a daily basis! They had to get rid of the Nuclear part of MRI machines to avoid this same situation.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  53. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    Is she a non-wax based polish? The wax based ones always seem to leave a build-up that's hard to remove.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  54. TV by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    Remember all those old TV shows where a group of people got together and sychronized their watches?

    Ok, set your watch .... now! ... Hold it, Jimmy is 3 picoseconds fast! We have to do it again!

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  55. Huge for Cell Coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cell phones communicate at a very high frequency (and the government wants to push it higher), which requires very precise time synchronization. Realistically, cell towers can just look at the GPS timing signal, which is extremely accurate, and base off that - probably with some decent atomic clock as a backup in case signal is lost for a period of ~hours or maybe days before noise becomes an issue.

    Now take this indoors, and you lose your ability to resync your cell base station with an external stable source. Result: your frequency will shift away from the band you want. You either need a better clock on your indoor base station (at least as expensive as an outdoor one, thousands of dollars minimum), or some transmitter/networking that can resync outside this system (expensive, possibly unreliable).

    As highly accurate clocks become cheaper, you could actually have indoor cell relays that wouldn't cost in the thousands of dollars - hopefully making it possible to get decent cell coverage in the city.

  56. We paid for it by HogGeek · · Score: 1

    Bought and paid for with taxes, Open Source it!

    You think it's cheap now...

  57. Not that large or power hungry by tttonyyy · · Score: 2

    I've designed kit with atomic clocks for undersea use, and specified where to procure them from. At the time (over a decade ago) rubidium clocks could be imported from Switzerland for between £1000 and £2000 with a choice of outputs (square, sine, frequency, amplitude...). They were the size of approx two Nintendo DSs on top of each other. Power consumption wasn't that bad.

    Given how long ago that was, I imagine things have improved significantly in terms of form factor and power consumption since then.

    So I'm not convinced on the headline assertions about how massive they are and the huge amount of power they draw :)

    --
    biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
    1. Re:Not that large or power hungry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These units offer very similar performance to rubidium oscillators that are selling on eBay by the dozen in the US $100 range. They aren't especially strong performers, but they do take a lot less power than alternative solutions.

      Even though they use cesium, they're really more like vapor-cell Rb standards in operation.

  58. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by bcrowell · · Score: 1

    (2) don't eat bananas.

    Actually the "banana equivalent dose" was scientifically wrong. Your body maintains a certain amount of potassium in it. If you add more, you just excrete the excess in your urine. Therefore eating a banana doesn't add significantly to your radiation exposure.

    Better examples are Brazil nuts (which contain radium) or the "cuddle-equivalent dose" -- sleeping with someone exposes you to radiation from their body. One month's worth of sleeping with someone is about the same as what people have been saying (incorrectly) was the excess dose from eating a banana.

  59. And one other ... by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

    And someone moonlighting as an English teacher, presumably.

  60. replace crystals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This could do wonders for RF communications. more precise RF carrier and modulation signals could mean better snr, more precise modulation, and most imporantly, better phase control at higher frequences dropping the bit error rate for PSK allowing more phases to accurately be displayed.

  61. , Mars and the moon by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    This will be ideal for setting up a GPS on cubesats for mars/moon. Such a system would require small amounts of circuitry since it would not be encrypted, nor taking commands. It would simply say when and where.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  62. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    One month's worth of sleeping with someone is about the same as what people have been saying (incorrectly) was the excess dose from eating a banana.
    Well, that means that many of the geeks on /. can finally say that they slept with a hot girl on that one and only time.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  63. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, not so much. Without exception (that I'm aware of) atomic clocks use quantum transitions between electron states, not nuclear states. They should really be called 'electronic clocks'.

    Just got back from a conference where there was some discussion of thorium-based clocks that actually would take advantage of stimulated transitions in nuclear quantum states, but it is still highly speculative.

  64. Quartz accuracy by evilviper · · Score: 1

    This strikes me as a bit of marketing. Everyone knows the ultra precise atomic clocks are as good as it gets, but cheap, less precise atomic clocks have been around for quite some time. In fact, you can do better with a high end temperature regulated quartz clock than a cheap atomic. And quartz offers the full range of options in between. I don't see any data on accuracy in tfa, so I'm going to assume it's slightly more accurate than a wrist watch...

    http://ieee.li/pdf/viewgraphs/precision_frequency_generation.pdf

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  65. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by michelcolman · · Score: 1

    Yes, but Cesium has a half life of 30 years! So even if it's not radioactive now...

  66. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by michelcolman · · Score: 1

    Thanks for telling me. No, really. I mean, most people would just not say anything and avoid me instead. At least now I know and I can do something about it. So I really appreciate you telling me.

  67. A podcast with Steve Fossey of Symmetricom by smartalix · · Score: 1

    There's a podcast where Fossey talks about the device on the Electronic Component News website: http://www.ecnmag.com/audio/2011/01/tinkers/first-Commercially-Available-Chip-Scale-Atomic-Clock.aspx

    --
    Read a preview of my novel CYBERCHILD at www.smartalix.com/cyberchild
  68. Re:Waiting for the trolls by LordStormes · · Score: 1

    The thing is, a word like shit or fuck is merely a nuisance, but that word hurts people very deeply and there is never any valid context to use it. Yes, we have mods, but I was out of mod points to eliminate it, and still feel like something needs to be done to excoriate that kind of hate from our societal discourse. (And, FWIW, I'm a white guy in the South).

  69. Re:Waiting for the trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that word hurts people very deeply and there is never any valid context to use it

    "that word" doesn't hurt anyone; blacks use it when talking to each other all the time.

    Rude people saying deliberately hurtful things hurt people, and it has very little to do with their vocabulary. The solution to them is not censorship but learning to fucking deal with it. Sticks and stones...

    And, FWIW, I'm a white guy in the South

    So ... white man's guilt complex?

  70. Re:Waiting for the trolls by LordStormes · · Score: 1

    No, person respecting other people complex.

  71. Re:Waiting for the trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, yeah... respond to the obligatory troll bait and completely ignore the actual point I made.

    And don't contradict me when I'm right.

  72. Re:Waiting for the trolls by LordStormes · · Score: 1

    I felt your point didn't merit discussion. But well enough. A derivative of that word is used by African-Americans too young to know what living in a society that used that word in its original context was like. This practice has been widely decried by more mature members of the populace who have actually lived through discrimination, segregation, and the like. For folks who remember what that's like having to use a separate bathroom, go to the back of the bus, and other far more egregious inequities, that word can be a powerful reminder of a past better left buried.

  73. relatively good by aepurniet · · Score: 1

    just dont take your networked widget with this thing embedded in it on a plane. chaos will ensue when you land. also avoid sudden acceleration.

  74. Re:Thanks but no thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Curie*