In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Magnus Danielson wri
tes:
>Randy,
>
>> Maybe it would be better to call it the "leading" edge?
We had a long discussion about this when we wrote RFC2783.
We settled on calling the two edges "assert" and "clear" because
any other words we could find were overloaded
From: "Randy Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Falling Edge Error
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:00:35 -0700
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Guys,
Randy,
> Maybe it would be better to call it the "leading" edge?
It got my vote at leas
ge-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Normand Martel
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 4:40 AM
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Falling Edge Error
If i'm not wrong, virtually ALL GPS modules have their timing
standardized
If i'm not wrong, virtually ALL GPS modules have their
timing standardized on the RISING edge and do NOT
guarantee anything about the falling edge.
Glenn's measurements confirm that fact... Ideally, to
get sure the users will use the rising edge, that
signal shall be a sawtooth!!! (or simpler: a r
I just tried a quick test with my HP 5334A, with a LPRO to TVB divider
on channel A and an Oncore UT+ on channel B.
frequency difference:
measured on the falling edge: 37E-9 Hz
measured on the leading edge: 6.7E-9 Hz
Both measurements are from the rising or falling edge of the 1 PPS of
the GPS
