"Unruh" <unruh-s...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message news:6rmxm.46378$db2.43...@edtnps83... > "Maarten Wiltink" <maar...@kittensandcats.net> writes: >> "Unruh" <unruh-s...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message >> news:k8yxm.46291$db2.44...@edtnps83...
>>> No idea what "spread spectrum " means for a clock. > >> That there is a certain jitter explicitly introduced in its >> effective frequency. Probably in the form of a random offset, >> that averages to zero, to every tick, so you're certain that >> the long-term frequency doesn't change. > > I am afraid I am left as confused as before. HOw introducing random > offsets would stop the frequency from changing I have no idea. Say you have a clock running at 1 Hz. One tick per second. Naively, you might "spread its spectrum" by changing the frequency. Let it run at 0.5 Hz some seconds, 1.5 Hz some others. That's two ticks some seconds, two thirds of one others. The average frequency works out to 0.75 Hz. Not what you want. Alternatively, instead of ticking at the top of every second, add a random offset to the time when every tick happens. After an hour, there will have been 3,600 ticks. Still 1 Hz. > It sounds like a terrible idea, but that may be ignorance. If you want the best clock possible, it is. But that's not the only consideration. Groetjes, Maarten Wiltink _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
