On 6 June 2010 10:21, Bruce Griffiths bruce.griffi...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
Steve Rooke wrote:
On 5 June 2010 19:07, Bruce Griffithsbruce.griffi...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
Wrong again.
No, I'm not wrong Bruce.
Your contribution is largely irrelevant to the original discussion.
The effect of
Wrong again.
The integration/averaging referred to occurs when one counts the output
transitions of the VFC for a fixed time interval.
This process needs to be replicated using the sampled EFC data if one is
to measure ADEV.
Bruce
Steve Rooke wrote:
I think I have found the source of the
On 5 June 2010 19:07, Bruce Griffiths bruce.griffi...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
Wrong again.
No, I'm not wrong Bruce.
The integration/averaging referred to occurs when one counts the output
transitions of the VFC for a fixed time interval.
This process needs to be replicated using the sampled EFC
On 5 June 2010 22:06, Steve Rooke sar10...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 June 2010 19:07, Bruce Griffiths bruce.griffi...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
Wrong again.
No, I'm not wrong Bruce.
The integration/averaging referred to occurs when one counts the output
transitions of the VFC for a fixed time interval.
Steve Rooke wrote:
On 5 June 2010 19:07, Bruce Griffithsbruce.griffi...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
Wrong again.
No, I'm not wrong Bruce.
Your contribution is largely irrelevant to the original discussion.
The effect of the PLL itself is (or should be) well understood.
However various
I think I have found the source of the integration issue. I've spent
some considerable time ploughing through as many sources of
descriptions on ADEV, AVAR and the tight-PLL method. I've even tried
looking for the infamous finite time interval integrator which seems
to be highly notable by it's
