Gerard, On 26 June 2010 09:46, Gerard PG5G <p...@b737.co.uk> wrote: > Warren, > > I couldn't care less whether your or any method works or not. I have no > vested interest or opinion whatsoever.
Well, if your not interested in this, why are you bothering us by your opinions. Perhaps *you* should "leave us alone" unless you have something useful to say. > I can say however that in the short time I have been on this list I have > grown very tired of the way you hijack any thread that comes along. I wasn't aware that Warren was hijacking "any thread", he has only been commenting on the TPLL thread that he started a long time back now. > Most people who think they have something that is better than ANYTHING done > before have one of two motives: fame or fortune. Or wishing to gift something to the community. > If you are after fame, build one of your TPPL thingies, test it (or better > yet, have it tested) and submit results to a peer reviewed magazine. Glory > will be yours. He has done that here. > If you are after fortune, build one of your TPPL thingies, test it (or > better yet, have it tested), manufacture it, sell it. Money will be yours. He is not interested in fortune, well not per say. > So I guess what I am trying to say is: build one of your TPPL thingies and > have it tested. He already has had this done by a third pay on this list and the results have been published. Please would you like to review the archives of this group before you wade in like this. > I wish you either or both, fame and/or money. I honestly do. However, until > you have decided what you want out of this and how to go about it, please > leave us alone. Well that is very polite coming from someone who has only been here for a self proclaimed "short time". Perhaps you would like to sit this one out and just hit Del whenever you see any of the postings on this subject. Thank you, Steve - ZL3TUV & G8KVD > Thank you. > > SK PG5G > > > WarrenS wrote: >> >> Charles Posted a bunch of stuff (below), >> >> Most think I should just ignore him, but I can not help myself, >> he has after all made this one just too easy and silly not to respond to. >> >> I hope Charles did not consider this to be just another "good example" of >> all the 'constructive helpful criticism' I've received. >> >>> His childish tantrums, insults, and outlandish claims are his and his >>> alone. >> >> Funny, I have to wonder if maybe Charles was just reading and referring to >> his own posting. >> Charles's past and latest posting does show that he has several problems, >> both technical as well as emotionally. >> Don't we all?, It is just that most have the good sense and taste not to >> make them so public. >> Sounds to me that he is someone that does need a lot of help, but >> certainly not the kind of help I can give. >> >> Some of the more ironic things, I find in the latest 'attack facts' is his >> statement: [paraphrased] >> >>> [Warren does not understand that all the name calling and insults and >>> attacks have been fair attempts by professional engineers to understand >>> Warren's TPLL implementation] >>> so that they can TRY to ascertain to what degree the TPLL is likely to >>> provide useful results over a broader range of conditions than those that >>> have been publicly demonstrated. >> >> 1) why would a professional engineer have to resort to attacks in a fair >> attempt to understand something so simple or so old and basic? >> >> 2) why would the professional engineers need to have more information, >> when everything that is needed is already on John's site? >> especially if AS CLAMED over and over, they are asking to get this >> information from someone that does not even know what he is doing. >> >> 3) Just how much broader range do they want or need than has already been >> publicly demonstrated, that it works good enough from near DC to 100Hz for >> every device and noise type it has been tested WITH NO exceptions (limited >> only by the controlled OCXO). >> >> There are some things that I do not Understand, Such as: >> >> I do not understand, Nor do I really care, what part of this Charles does >> not understand. >> I will not let his or others shortcoming and non-understandings be MY >> problem >> >> Also posted: >>> >>> I know [some] have said more than once that we should just ignore "the >>> femtosecond thing," but why? >>> (Not that anything turns on this one claim anyway) >> >> Just because of Charles's and others own non-understandings and >> limitations, >> why one would then feel it is MY reasonability to try and educate someone >> like that is way beyond my understanding. >> but >> >> I'll try again to comment on the femto second thing, since some seem to be >> hung up on that part most of all. >> In order to work good (which no one seems to be denying any more), the >> TPLL method has to hold the two Oscillator's phase differences real, real >> close OVER the Bandwidth of interest. >> Anyone that can understand what limits a noise floor plot, can see that >> the phase differences are being held to about 10 fs at 100 Hz, from the data >> posted on John's site. >> >> Anyone that can do simple math and has a vary basic understanding of the >> TPLLs could calculate for their self with the BW information given in John's >> site, >> that the TPLL is "trying" to hold the phase difference over the Bandwidth >> of interest from DC to 1 KHz down to single digit Femtoseconds varation for >> low noise oscillators. >> If you do not have a favorite Phase detector to use, can use the >> mini-Circuits SYPD-1 for you calculations, (or any other), >> >> A little less obvious but still very easy to calculate with simple math >> (OK, just a little harder than 2+2, but not by too much), >> is that the noise floor limit of a good low noise AMP can give about 1 fs >> of phase differences between the two Oscillators OVER the Bandwidth of >> importance. >> If you do not have a favorite low noise op amp to use, one can use the >> op-27 for their calculations, (or many others), >> >> If Charles or anyone would like to do and post 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 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 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 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 apply to this method. >> >> ws >> ********************* >> ********************* >> [time-nuts] crystal oscillators & TPLL >> Charles P. Steinmetz charles_steinmetz at lavabit.com >> Fri Jun 25 07:05:59 UTC 2010 >> >> 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 members of this list and this is the blockage. >> >> I must disagree. I suppose it's good for Warren to have an >> apologist, but you are simply not getting the facts right. Warren >> seems to be unable to deal with constructive criticism. >> >> What you characterize as attacks by "arrogant naysayers" (and as >> professional engineers looking down on amateur engineers) has, to my >> reading, been a fair attempt by other listmembers to understand >> Warren's TPLL implementation so that they can try to ascertain to >> what degree it is likely to provide useful results over a broader >> range of conditions than those that have been publicly >> demonstrated. As we have asked for more details so we can try to do >> this, Warren has responded in every case -- every case -- with vague >> allusions to details of his implementation and testing he has done, >> childish accusations that nobody understands anything and we all must >> think he can't add two and two, followed by more and more outlandish >> claims about what his device does (for just one example, "the simple >> analog TPLL method holds the Phase difference [between the reference >> and test oscillators] to zero (with-in 1 femtosecond)" -- Wed, 9 Jun >> 2010 21:05:57 -0700), which (i) cannot be true and (ii) appear to >> demonstrate that Warren not only has not tested at least some of the >> things that he is claiming, but seems not to understand much of the >> basic subject matter. Warren has had more than ample opportunity to >> answer any criticism by saying calmly that he did "a" (with a decent >> explanation of what "a" is) and got "x" result, and similarly with >> "b" and "y," "c" and "z," etc., but he has not once done so. One >> might reasonably conclude after all of the smokescreens and refusals >> that he has not, in fact, done any of the things to which he has >> vaguely alluded. >> >> I know you have said more than once that we should just ignore "the >> femtosecond thing," but why? (Not that anything turns on this one >> claim anyway -- there are plenty of others like it.) You yourself >> called it into question (Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:05:26 +1200). It is a >> claim Warren made, and very specifically -- not that a femtosecond is >> the resolution of the test method stated in units of time (which >> others have advanced to try to explain what he meant), but that his >> PLL locks two 10 MHz oscillators to within one femtosecond of each >> other and that he has verified this in several ways. If Warren >> claims this thing (and numerous others that can easily be found in >> the voluminous record) that must be mistaken (or worse), what else >> that he has claimed can we trust? When you read the posts and make >> the inferences that Warren's statements invite (in many cases, >> seemingly inescapably), it appears that the only trustworthy >> information we have about the operation of Warren's TPLL is what John >> published -- which indicates that the method has promise -- perhaps >> even considerable promise -- but is far from the proof Warren seems >> to think it is that his device fulfills all of his claims or has been >> characterized to the point that others can predict under what >> conditions they can rely on it. >> >> So, please, don't make Warren out as the poor, well-meaning basement >> inventor being bashed by the "professionals." His childish tantrums, >> insults, and outlandish claims are his and his alone. Even if we >> assume for the sake of argument that he was hard done by (which I do >> not believe is true), that would not excuse his responses. It would >> have been one thing to say, "Hey, I put this together and it seems to >> work pretty well" and leave it at that, but that is not what Warren did. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Charles >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- Steve Rooke - ZL3TUV & G8KVD The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once. - Einstein _______________________________________________ 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.