Thanks Don
For all the nuts that want the analysis with math and fancy papers on how
(or why) the TPLL works.
They will find the whole thing on one line on page 4-21 of that paper.
(page 110)
That's about it and all that is needed, if one also understands how to do
integration by oversampling
In message <8f43d37e769b4caab3309830e40dd...@warcon28gz>, "WarrenS" writes:
>That is really all there is to it, if one starts with Frequency differences,
>like the TPLL, and not Phase, like most other methods, to get the raw data
>to use with an ADEV program like "PLOTTER".
While it is absolute
likes it.
Bob
- Original Message -
From: "WarrenS"
To: "Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement"
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] crystal oscillators & TPLL
Thanks Don
For all the nuts that want the analysis with
frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] crystal oscillators & TPLL
So now we, those that want a little more than faith, are nuts. Some day
when you learn how to speak to people with respect, you too may get some
respect of your own.
Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not know
y have had
enough.
The best way to stop this thread is to stop responding to it, so that there
is nothing else to say.
ws
******
[time-nuts] crystal oscillators & TPLL
Poul-Henning Kamp phk at phk.freebsd.dk
Tue Jun 22 15:29:38 UTC 2010
Previous message: [time-nuts] crystal osci
In message <0c4f750835264e13ab61d4b8c8448...@warcon28gz>, "WarrenS" writes:
>> you have a very tough row to hoe when it comes to proving
>> that your frequency samples represent the same signal as a sequence
>> of zero deadtime period measurements would do.
>
>Sorry, I though that was obvious.
Ye
red to as one of the "NUTs"
OK I'll admit, I don't understand that one myself, but I'm OK on the rest of
the above obvious things.
ws
******
[time-nuts] crystal oscillators & TPLL
Poul-Henning Kamp phk at phk.freebsd.dk
Tue Jun 22 18:55:00 UTC 2010
From: "WarrenS"
To: "Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement"
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] crystal oscillators & TPLL
Poul-Henning posted
Yes, you probably did. (Think it was obvious)
TRUE, it is obvious to me, but then I&
In message <415e11efec7b46ffb05a790f4f4a4...@warcon28gz>, "WarrenS" writes:
>Poul-Henning posted
>So is there some part that is not obvious to you?
Yes, it is painfully obvious to me, that you are so in love with
your idea, that no argument will ever penetrate your defensive
shield.
Please look
> To: "Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 11:20 AM
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] crystal oscillators & TPLL
>
>
>> Thanks Don
>>
>> For all the nuts that want the analysis with math and fancy papers o
On 23 June 2010 03:29, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <8f43d37e769b4caab3309830e40dd...@warcon28gz>, "WarrenS" writes:
>
>>That is really all there is to it, if one starts with Frequency differences,
>>like the TPLL, and not Phase, like most other methods, to get the raw data
>>to use with
Poul,
On 23 June 2010 06:55, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <0c4f750835264e13ab61d4b8c8448...@warcon28gz>, "WarrenS" writes:
>
>>> you have a very tough row to hoe when it comes to proving
>>> that your frequency samples represent the same signal as a sequence
>>> of zero deadtime period m
Poul,
I can see that you are somewhat frustrated with all of this but let's
please try to understand what is going on with the design and not get
bogged down with interpersonal issues.
On 23 June 2010 09:35, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <415e11efec7b46ffb05a790f4f4a4...@warcon28gz>, "Wa
just wallowing in his own
verbosity.
In any case, I'm staying away from this thread from now on, it's going
nowhere.
Regards,
Bob
- Original Message -
From: Steve Rooke
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 9:04 PM
Subje
PM
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] crystal oscillators & TPLL
On 23 June 2010 04:36, Robert Benward wrote:
> So now we, those that want a little more than faith, are nuts. Some day
> when you learn how to speak to people with respect, y
gt; From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On Behalf
> Of Steve Rooke
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 8:19 PM
> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] crystal oscillators & TPLL
>
> On 23 June 2010 04:36, Robert B
slaught.
> In any case, I'm staying away from this thread from now on, it's going
> nowhere.
Well, that's a shame, but it's your call.
Best regards,
Steve
> Regards,
> Bob
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Steve Rooke
> To: Discussion
+1200
> From: Steve Rooke
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] crystal oscillators & TPLL
> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
>
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Bob,
>
> On 23 June 2010 15:13, Robert
st that I have built up with Warren if
I write more but I think that I'm not saying anything here than can be
read from the hundreds of posting on this topic.
Best regards,
Steve
> Best,
> Dick Moore
>
>
> On Jun 23, 2010, at 5:00 AM, time-nuts-requ...@febo.com wrote:
>
>
Steve Rooke wrote:
> I think the reluctance to publish at
> component level is the concern that it will be set upon by a bunch of
> rabid dogs each saying pointing out "errors" in the design or
> suggestions of how it could be done much better.
A guy has to decide who his audience is.
If you ar
On 25 June 2010 01:44, ch...@yipyap.com wrote:
> Steve Rooke wrote:
>> I think the reluctance to publish at
>> component level is the concern that it will be set upon by a bunch of
>> rabid dogs each saying pointing out "errors" in the design or
>> suggestions of how it could be done much better.
Steve wrote:
I agree with what you say and really wish we could move forward
with this. The only thing that is preventing this happening is the
expected reaction that will occur when/if that information is ever
released. Unfortunately the concept of constructive criticism is an
anathema to some
Le 25/06/2010 06:40, Steve Rooke a écrit :
...snip...
Perhaps more like yourself would express the same sentiment publicly
here, that may be the encouragement that Warren needs to take that
plunge. So please speak up and add your support to Warren. Thank you.
I'll add my vote. If we had a
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 16:02, mike cook wrote:
> Heaven forbid that I start more mud slinging, but I think that Bruce did
> not take enough notice of Warrens assertion that his method was "good
> enough". There may be mathematical incompleteness in Warrens' implementation
> and maybe his implem
oops.. thumbs instead of fingers
Le 25/06/2010 10:15, Sanjeev Gupta a écrit :
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 16:02, mike cook wrote:
Heaven forbid that I start more mud slinging, but I think that Bruce did
not take enough notice of Warrens assertion that his method was "good
enough". There may
Charles,
I find it hard to believe that an engineer with your obvious skills
would even need to question the fs issue or ask questions about it's
truth. Even the briefest glance at the block schematic shows that
there is a 100kHz filter in the loop which would limit the lock to
10us given that the
unsubstantiated and false clam
that would be easy to prove wrong given a chance,
If they just reference some paper that has meaningless information because
it does not apply to this method.
ws
*
*
[time-nuts] crystal oscillators & TPLL
Charles P. Ste
7;m still willing to try and prove to all that will NOT EVER be the case.
OR is it still OK for some expert to make an unsubstantiated and false
clam that would be easy to prove wrong given a chance,
If they just reference some paper that has meaningless information
because it does not appl
ility value over a limited time
> and Bandwidth called tau.
>
> Also if anyone still thinks they can make a reasonable data set file that
> shows where the TPLL will mess up, Go for it.
> I'm still willing to try and prove to all that will NOT EVER be the case.
> OR is it still O
the SIMPLE math to show
>> that ANY of femtosecond stuff above is not true,
>> and their answer turns out to be different than mine, I'd be more than
>> willing to show what they did wrong or different than me.
>>
>> The fact that Charles and others seem to be confusing 10 M
I imagine that there are people on this list like myself with limited
engineering experience
but a healthy appetite for knowledge and an interest in time/frequency
measurement.
I have little interest in complex math - an inherent brain block methinks, but
enjoy
building hardware and incorporatin
thers seem to be confusing 10 MHz Phase jitter
>> with 100 Hz and below bandwidth limited Phase differences do
>> show they have a few major things missing in their understanding about
>> what ADEV is and how it is a frequency stability value over a limited time
>> and Ban
Steve,
It's for people like you that makes this whole thing worthwhile. Keep
hanging on the line and I'm certain something will transpire.
Best regards,
Steve
On 27 June 2010 01:24, Steve Roberts wrote:
> I imagine that there are people on this list like myself with limited
> engineering exper
33 matches
Mail list logo
