[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >On Jan 25, 12:53=A0pm, Unruh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The Allan intercept is predicated on a very specific model of the noise in=
>> a clock ( as I recall basically random gaussian noise at high frequencies,= >> and 1/f noise at low). It is not at all clear that real computers comply >> with that. >Then you should read Dr. Mills papers. You are correct that it is not >necessarily >the case that they comply, but Dr. Mills has demonstrated it >experimentally many >times for many different setups. Additionally, the behavior model is And I have demonstrated it experimentally on my few computers that it does not.-- step transients in the frequency are not part of the model. Now, I suspect that if I took an unused computer and looked at the noise on it, it would comply. 1/f noise is pretty universal at low f (and the reason is poorly understood.) The question is what happens if the computer is in use-- used heavily during the day ( higher [EMAIL PROTECTED] temp) and not at night, and not at weekends. Lots of power at 10^-5 Hz and harmonics, and .7 10^-8Hz.-- more than would be predicted by 1/f >nto actually >the same over all possible configurations, which lead to his >abandoning the FLL >in the kernel code, since while theoretically useful it added needless >complexity >over the observed real world ranges. >Pleasem Dave is not always right about everything, and can be >convinced with data >when he is wrong. But it is very hard to convince him with A Priori >reasoning, since >he has been doing that same reasoning for a lot longer than the rest >of us, and has >tested all his hypotheses on real systems. Fair enough. >Brian Utterback _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
