Hi As with most complex questions the real answer is "that depends" …
Blind averaging will indeed get you in trouble. Curve fitting (a straight line is a simple one) often is the better approach to phase data. You can get an "averaging like" improvement (square root of the number of samples). You need to use a technique that fits the data and the noise you have on the data. Bob On Sep 19, 2013, at 8:17 PM, Tom Van Baak <t...@leapsecond.com> wrote: >> So it's just a matter of averaging what you can measure >> and assuming that the average will be close? > > Two quick comments. > > 1) A gradual phase drift over time is identical (by definition) to a > frequency offset. > > 2) In general, "averaging" a moving target gets you *less* accuracy, not more. > > We learned in school that averaging enhances accuracy. This is true in > textbook cases where the mean is constant and where the distribution of error > about the mean is symmetrical. > > But when working with clocks (time, frequency, stability measurements) this > assumption often not true and it's helpful to think of averaging more as a > disease than a cure. > > /tvb > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
