Hi > On Nov 10, 2014, at 6:33 PM, Magnus Danielson <mag...@rubidium.se> wrote: > > Bob, > > On 11/10/2014 01:17 PM, Bob Camp wrote: >> >>> On Nov 10, 2014, at 2:49 AM, Magnus Danielson <mag...@rubidium.dyndns.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11/09/2014 07:11 PM, Bob Camp wrote: >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> That may (or may not) give you the best ADEV on the output. My guess is >>>> that the filtering algorithm will need to be a bit more complex. NTP’s aim >>>> is mainly to throw out bad clocks and pick one as best. We would more >>>> likely want to combine the outputs and use all of the good clocks we have. >>>> The idea is to improve on the ADEV of the *best* source you have available. >>> >>> The aim is to remove false-tickers and then build the best ensemble of the >>> remaining sources and weigh them according to stability. >>> >>> It seems this goal is not very well met in practice, but the theory >>> foundation is pretty good. >> >> The intent of NTP is great. The implementation is targeted at the real NTP >> world. A set of good clocks that all are equally good simply is not what >> happens in the real NTP world. They don’t address it because it does not >> happen often enough to matter. > > Who said equally good? Rather, they are sufficiently near each other so that > some weighted average can be formed.
My original example that started this whole sub sub thread … I was trying very hard to keep things simple. Bob > > However, some of the issues is in getting "close enough". > > 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.
