In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Didier Juges" writes:
>> If a piece of black tape covering the lsd would turn
>> 2.01 into 2.0, would that solve the problem?
Doesn't that only solve the problem if the black tape knows about 4/5
rounding ?
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
Sounds good to me :-)
Thanks for a useful suggestion.
Didier
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Van Baak
> Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 9:49 PM
> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts]
If a piece of black tape covering the lsd would turn
2.01 into 2.0, would that solve the problem?
/tvb
___
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 instruc
At 09:40 PM 5/10/2008, Didier Juges wrote...
>In my real world ... there is no allowance for measurement or
>calibration uncertainty except in some very unusual circumstances. The
>customer reviews and approves the test procedure and acceptance
>criteria...
If the example you gave followed those
This is exactly why I should not have started that thread.
But since I started this, I have to finish it.
I confused you with specification requirement and acceptance requirement.
Here is where this came from:
In our business (custom military hardware), we receive a specification from
the custome
At 08:50 PM 5/10/2008, John Miles wrote...
>Accuracy ratings for digital displays are commonly specified as a
>percentage
>+/- 1 LSD. So given tolerances of +/- 1 dB +/- 1 LSD for the analyzer
>and
>+/- 1 dB for the DUT, 2.01 dB is technically within spec.
No. The stated spec was peak to peak,
> "I have never had a piece of equipment rejected because a reading was
> 1.99 for a spec of 2 max"
>
> The statements were made with regard to instrument
> resolution/accuracy/precision. Clearly, measuring 2.01 (or 1.99) on an
> instrument with an accuracy of 1 does not allow compliance with a
>
At 08:02 PM 5/10/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote...
> This has nothing to do with fraudulently claiming compliance, it
> just
>started as a well reasoned discussion of tolerances and the
>implications thereof.
There can be no other conclusion from the statements made.
"Most microwave network an
In a message dated 11/05/2008 00:36:37 GMT Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My mistake. If I ever used a measurement beyond it's accuracy to
fraudulently claim compliance with customer specification, I'd quickly
lose customers. Your business must be different.
At 04:07 PM 5/10/2008, Didier Juges wrote...
>The point is that in my 30 years experience is selling equipment to
>government and prime contractors, I have never had a piece of
>equipment
>rejected because a reading was 1.99 for a spec of 2 max, but I have
>seen
>many cases where an instrument re
Yes, the frequency accuracy is not very good.
We generated 27MHz out of the CVBS coming from a Philips Directv STB.
To do this, just hook up an NXP video decoder to the CVBS/YC signal (such as
SAA7111, SAA7114 etc) and that will give you a line-locked 27MHz.
Significant medium term drift,
The point is that in my 30 years experience is selling equipment to
government and prime contractors, I have never had a piece of equipment
rejected because a reading was 1.99 for a spec of 2 max, but I have seen
many cases where an instrument reading 2.01 (or, God forbid 2.001 dB as some
can displ
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] HP 5370B
Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 17:16:02 +
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Henk ten Pi
> erick writes:
>
> >The 5370 has a resolution of 1ps but the accuracy is much lower. Say
> >the 20
From: "Didier Juges" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] HP 5370B
Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 08:07:38 -0500
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Didier,
> Sorry if my answer was confusing. I did not mean to imply that the 5370 was
> 3 orders of magnitude more accurate than the 5335, simply that i
From: Bruce Griffiths <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] HP 5370B
Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 00:15:34 +1200
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Magnus Danielson wrote:
> >> Mark,
> >>
> >> The 5335 is specified at 9 digits/second of resolution, the 5370 is
> >> specified at 12 digits/second.
>
Henk ten Pierick wrote:
> In my view precision and accuracy have the same meaning and here is a
> mix up between accuracy and resolution.
> The 5370 has a resolution of 1ps but the accuracy is much lower. Say
> the 20ps stated above.
> Thus, in my view, there is no difference between precision an
At 10:43 AM 5/10/2008, Didier Juges wrote...
(corrected for top-posting)
>At 10:18 AM 5/10/2008, Mike S wrote...
> > At 09:22 AM 5/10/2008, Didier Juges wrote...
> > >I have had to argue too many times that a piece of equipment
> > with a 2dB
> > >p-p requirement on flatness was just fine when it m
Alberto,
I have a bunch of PDFs and the old dos labmon program on the Jupiter 8
series:
http://www.rabel.org/archives/Rockwell_Jupiter_8/
The 5V & 3.3V have a different main power pin. Each version has the other
pin omitted so you don't accidently feed it the wrong power. Pin 2 is for
5V, Pin 4
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Henk ten Pi
erick writes:
>The 5370 has a resolution of 1ps but the accuracy is much lower. Say
>the 20ps stated above.
And just to make it maddenign difficult, it's not actually 20ps,
it is:
19.53125 ps [5ns/256]
or possibly
19.60783137... ps
Henk ten Pierick said the following on 05/10/2008 12:30 PM:
>
> In my view precision and accuracy have the same meaning and here is a
> mix up between accuracy and resolution.
> The 5370 has a resolution of 1ps but the accuracy is much lower. Say
> the 20ps stated above.
> Thus, in my view,
On May 10, 2008, at 15:07, Didier Juges wrote:
> Sorry if my answer was confusing. I did not mean to imply that the
> 5370 was
> 3 orders of magnitude more accurate than the 5335, simply that it
> attempts
> to display data with 3 orders of magnitude greater resolution (3
> orders of
> magn
Of course, actually that was the point of my posting.
Most people assume that what they read on the instrument's display is the
truth. As long as they read on the proper side of the requirement, (less
than a max, or more than a min) all is good.
I have been in this business for 30 years. They all
I knew would get comments on that. I simply did not provide enough
information. I thought most everyone who has done it would know what I was
refering to.
Acuracy of these instruments is not one number, it is a 3 dimensional chart,
and time is the 4th dimension.
Forget I even mentioned it. I do n
At 09:22 AM 5/10/2008, Didier Juges wrote...
>Most microwave network analyzers have amplitude
>resolution of 0.01dB, while their accuracy is just around 1dB in most
>cases.
>
>I have had to argue too many times that a piece of equipment with a
>2dB p-p
>requirement on flatness was just fine when
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Didier Juges
> Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 8:08 AM
> To: Time-Nuts
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] HP 5370B
>
>
> That's a good illustration of the difference between
> precision and accuracy.
>
This
> -Original Message-
> From: Magnus Danielson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 5:09 AM
> To: time-nuts@febo.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] HP 5370B
>
> From: "Didier Juges" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] HP 5370B
> Date: Fri, 9 Ma
Magnus Danielson wrote:
>> Mark,
>>
>> The 5335 is specified at 9 digits/second of resolution, the 5370 is
>> specified at 12 digits/second.
>>
>
> That is severly overoptimistic on the 5370's part and just about
> overoptimistic
> on the 5335's part. I think you should not use those sales-nu
From: "Didier Juges" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] HP 5370B
Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 20:11:42 -0500
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Mark,
>
> The 5335 is specified at 9 digits/second of resolution, the 5370 is
> specified at 12 digits/second.
That is severly overoptimistic on the 5
28 matches
Mail list logo
