There is much to learn and there will always be much to learn, we only
have to look at history for examples of this. Providing we never loose
understanding of this point, our path to enlightenment will always be
open.
Steve
On 5 June 2010 23:58, Magnus Danielson wrote:
> On 06/05/2010 01:19 PM,
I have no problem with strong points of view, in some ways it increases my
enthusiasm for the topic. The medium of email does have it's limits, but why
censor or ignore the discussion if it includes these indications of a strong
belief in ones view ? We have many "dry" papers to read please d
Magnus Danielson wrote:
Also, modern cheap programmable TCXOs break the model as they have a
hump in the phase noise due to their locked PLL, which the original
model does not allow for. The autocorrelation function will be quite
different. Notice how this ripples over to other locked oscill
On 06/05/2010 01:19 PM, Steve Rooke wrote:
So, at best, it's an estimate.
Yes.
How good it is, how fast you get it, how much you pay for it and how
much effort it is to get and operate is the issue.
Getting accurate measurements is hard to prove actually. Getting
sufficiently good relative
You didn't have to read it all, no one forced you and in terms of
physical bandwidth, I would not expect anyone to seriously read any
group list on a cellphone, let alone one connected at less than 3G
speeds.
Nice poem BTW, I must read more of him.
Steve
On 5 June 2010 09:30, Arthur Dent wrote:
So, at best, it's an estimate.
Steve
On 5 June 2010 23:07, Magnus Danielson wrote:
> On 06/03/2010 02:15 PM, Ulrich Bangert wrote:
>>
>> Gentlemen,
>>
>> the discussion between Bruce and Warren concerning Warren's implementation
>> of NIST's "Tight PLL Method" has caused quite a stir in our grou
On 06/03/2010 02:15 PM, Ulrich Bangert wrote:
Gentlemen,
the discussion between Bruce and Warren concerning Warren's implementation
of NIST's "Tight PLL Method" has caused quite a stir in our group.
My scientifical knowledge about the discussed topic is so much inferior
compared to Bruce's one
This out-of-control thread has been a total waste of bandwidth
for some time now. I feel that I should be embarrassed for some
of the posters here because they appear to have no sense of
shame. this thread reminds me of a Robert Frost poem about
choices that isn't any more off topic than some o
So a tree is a physical object, its workings can be understood by
botanical analysis, but just how do you quantify its beauty in numbers
or equations then? And before you try to wriggle out of this, the
beauty of a tree is a physical artefact because it imbues a reaction
in the viewer.
2+3*6=20
3^
I for one, have grown tired of the ad-hominem anti-intellectual attacks.
This is supposed to be about science and engineering, not words. Therefore,
I'd like to see analysis. As Lord Kelvin put it:
"In physical science the first essential step in the direction of learning
any subject is to find
On 4 June 2010 07:11, Didier Juges wrote:
>
> WarrenS wrote:
>> Ulrich posted a bunch of logic stuff, some of which I did not understand.
>>
>> but I do think he missed the main point
>>
>
> I personally think Warren missed the point entirely, but it's just my
> opinion. This statement is
What! You don't have white crows where you live?
Steve
On 4 June 2010 04:40, Don Latham wrote:
> Does it mean that if you have a can of white spray paint, you can produce
> a white crow?
> Don
>
> WarrenS
>> Ulrich posted a bunch of logic stuff, some of which I did not understand.
>>
>> but I d
WarrenS wrote:
> Ulrich posted a bunch of logic stuff, some of which I did not understand.
>
> but I do think he missed the main point
>
I personally think Warren missed the point entirely, but it's just my opinion.
This statement is a good summary of what has been going on. You cannot
Does it mean that if you have a can of white spray paint, you can produce
a white crow?
Don
WarrenS
> Ulrich posted a bunch of logic stuff, some of which I did not understand.
>
> but I do think he missed the main point
>
> This does not need to prove what does and doesn't work with every example
nly able to tell you just so much.
Bob
-Original Message-
From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On
Behalf Of Ulrich Bangert
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 8:16 AM
To: Time nuts
Subject: [time-nuts] A philosophy of science view on the tight pll
discuss
Ulrich posted a bunch of logic stuff, some of which I did not understand.
but I do think he missed the main point
This does not need to prove what does and doesn't work with every example,
only prove that is needed to answer ALL of Bruce's clams and concerns is if
Oversampling will give good
Ulrich,
So what's this got to do with black sheep. Was this some form of
Freudian slip by you Ulrich :)
So, lets examine what we are looking at here, this has now been
simplified down to a single true or false value which would be of
value if we were looking at a single single data point. That da
Thanks,
I had not thought about this in years.
Joe
-Original Message-
From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On
Behalf Of Ulrich Bangert
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 7:16 AM
To: Time nuts
Subject: [time-nuts] A philosophy of science view on the tight pll
Gentlemen,
the discussion between Bruce and Warren concerning Warren's implementation
of NIST's "Tight PLL Method" has caused quite a stir in our group.
My scientifical knowledge about the discussed topic is so much inferior
compared to Bruce's one that I don't have the heart to enter a contribut
19 matches
Mail list logo
