Michael Deutschmann wrote: > On Sat, 10 Oct 2009, David Woolley wrote: >> The general view in the amateur radio community is that spread spectrum >> computer clocks are a bad thing, because they spread the misery. > > So we can turn off spread spectrum with no guilt, then. > > The reason I was asking is that I'd expect most hackers to be biased in > their assessment of any EMI mitigation proposal with costs. We don't
Not sure which direction of bias you were expecting. The computer fashion junkies, with their case modding obviously don't care, but... > use radio much these days, so non-ionizing radiation would have to be > really intense to rattle us. A lot of the key developers of the internet were radio amateurs. Dave Mills, who developed NTP is one. I'm not sure of the current status in the commercialised world, but it wouldn't surprise me if the more technical companies had a lot. > > The real-life clock radio stations are all lower frequency than the FSB > of even the slowest computer with support for SS, so even the stratum 1 > folks don't have any interest on the EMC side of this issue. (They do > care about other EMI sources that fall in their playground, of course.) The most important radio time standard is GPS, which is in the low GHz. EMI is at submultiples of the raw FSB side because instruction rates and loop rates also introduce strong periodic elements. > _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
