Steve Rooke wrote: > Hi Mark, > > 2009/4/13 Mark Sims <hol...@hotmail.com>: > >> Hello Steve, >> >> Try this... take Tom's sample data set, run the numbers. Then, using a >> good random number generator, make another data set by randomly throwing >> out half (or more) of the samples (to simulate a non ZDT counter). Run the >> numbers again. See how they change. This should give you a good idea of >> how using a standard counter would affect your adev numbers. >> > > But randomly throwing out data points would introduce ZDT. It would introduce dead-time, it would not introduce zero dead-time (ZDT). Dropping every second sample of a phase/time-error series can maintain the zero dead-time property, but you loose the resolution for higher taus. > The whole > point I was making was that the data set is well defined the "missing" > data occurs every other sample therefore tau0 = 2 x (sample period of > each sample). > You can reduce the dataset size that way if you had phase/time-error samples and attain twice the tau, yes.
The downside is that you also reduce the degrees of freedom in the dataset and thus the statistical precission. With a large enought dataset this may not be much of an issue. Cheers, Magnus _______________________________________________ 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 instructions there.