Warren, advice from a friend, stop doing this please.
Everyone else, please stop feeding the troll.
Steve
On 26 June 2010 08:32, WarrenS warrensjmail-...@yahoo.com wrote:
Charles Posted a bunch of stuff (below),
Most think I should just ignore him, but I can not help myself,
he has after
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
I imagine that there are people on this list like myself with limited
engineering experience
but a healthy appetite for knowledge and an interest in time/frequency
measurement.
I have little interest in complex math - an inherent brain block methinks, but
enjoy
building hardware and
Hi
Now, that's one I can heartily agree with.
Bob
On Jun 26, 2010, at 9:08 AM, Steve Rooke wrote:
Warren, advice from a friend, stop doing this please.
Everyone else, please stop feeding the troll.
Steve
On 26 June 2010 08:32, WarrenS warrensjmail-...@yahoo.com wrote:
Charles
Steve,
It's for people like you that makes this whole thing worthwhile. Keep
hanging on the line and I'm certain something will transpire.
Best regards,
Steve
On 27 June 2010 01:24, Steve Roberts st...@borisone.demon.co.uk wrote:
I imagine that there are people on this list like myself with
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
Le 25/06/2010 06:40, Steve Rooke a écrit :
...snip...
Perhaps more like yourself would express the same sentiment publicly
here, that may be the encouragement that Warren needs to take that
plunge. So please speak up and add your support to Warren. Thank you.
I'll add my vote. If we had
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 16:02, mike cook mike.c...@orange.fr wrote:
Heaven forbid that I start more mud slinging, but I think that Bruce did
not take enough notice of Warrens assertion that his method was good
enough. There may be mathematical incompleteness in Warrens' implementation
and
oops.. thumbs instead of fingers
Le 25/06/2010 10:15, Sanjeev Gupta a écrit :
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 16:02, mike cookmike.c...@orange.fr wrote:
Heaven forbid that I start more mud slinging, but I think that Bruce did
not take enough notice of Warrens assertion that his method was good
Charles,
I find it hard to believe that an engineer with your obvious skills
would even need to question the fs issue or ask questions about it's
truth. Even the briefest glance at the block schematic shows that
there is a 100kHz filter in the loop which would limit the lock to
10us given that
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'
Warren,
I couldn't care less whether your or any method works or not. I have no
vested interest or opinion whatsoever.
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.
Most people who think they
than can be
read from the hundreds of posting on this topic.
Best regards,
Steve
Best,
Dick Moore
On Jun 23, 2010, at 5:00 AM, time-nuts-requ...@febo.com wrote:
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 19:17:43 +1200
From: Steve Rooke sar10...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] crystal
Steve Rooke wrote:
I think the reluctance to publish at
component level is the concern that it will be set upon by a bunch of
rabid dogs each saying pointing out errors in the design or
suggestions of how it could be done much better.
A guy has to decide who his audience is.
If you are
On 25 June 2010 01:44, ch...@yipyap.com ch...@yipyap.com wrote:
Steve Rooke wrote:
I think the reluctance to publish at
component level is the concern that it will be set upon by a bunch of
rabid dogs each saying pointing out errors in the design or
suggestions of how it could be done much
-nuts-boun...@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On Behalf
Of Steve Rooke
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 8:19 PM
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] crystal oscillators TPLL
On 23 June 2010 04:36, Robert Benward rbenw...@verizon.net wrote
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 9:04 PM
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] crystal oscillators TPLL
Poul,
I can see that you are somewhat frustrated with all of this but let's
please try to understand what is going on with the design and not get
bogged down with interpersonal issues.
On 23
...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] crystal oscillators TPLL
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
time-nuts@febo.com
Message-ID:
aanlktinden2nasybfxjczqhqht9ypqu6dbu7ialsj...@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Bob,
On 23 June
Thanks Don
For all the nuts that want the analysis with math and fancy papers on how
(or why) the TPLL works.
They will find the whole thing on one line on page 4-21 of that paper.
(page 110)
That's about it and all that is needed, if one also understands how to do
integration by oversampling
In message 8f43d37e769b4caab3309830e40dd...@warcon28gz, WarrenS writes:
That is really all there is to it, if one starts with Frequency differences,
like the TPLL, and not Phase, like most other methods, to get the raw data
to use with an ADEV program like PLOTTER.
While it is absolutely true
likes it.
Bob
- Original Message -
From: WarrenS warrensjmail-...@yahoo.com
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
time-nuts@febo.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] crystal oscillators TPLL
Thanks Don
For all the nuts that want
and frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] crystal oscillators TPLL
So now we, those that want a little more than faith, are nuts. Some day
when you learn how to speak to people with respect, you too may get some
respect of your own.
Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not know
Poul-Henning posted:
While it is absolutely true that you can calculate ADEV from frequency
measurements,
No disagreement there,
you have a very tough row to hoe when it comes to proving
that your frequency samples represent the same signal as a sequence
of zero deadtime period measurements
In message 0c4f750835264e13ab61d4b8c8448...@warcon28gz, WarrenS writes:
you have a very tough row to hoe when it comes to proving
that your frequency samples represent the same signal as a sequence
of zero deadtime period measurements would do.
Sorry, I though that was obvious.
Yes, you
Poul-Henning posted
Yes, you probably did. (Think it was obvious)
TRUE, it is obvious to me, but then I've had the advantage of being able to
test the TPLL to find the answers to things that I did not understand at
first.
So is there some part that is not obvious to you?
Maybe someone
: WarrenS warrensjmail-...@yahoo.com
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
time-nuts@febo.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] crystal oscillators TPLL
Poul-Henning posted
Yes, you probably did. (Think it was obvious)
TRUE, it is obvious to me
In message 415e11efec7b46ffb05a790f4f4a4...@warcon28gz, WarrenS writes:
Poul-Henning posted
So is there some part that is not obvious to you?
Yes, it is painfully obvious to me, that you are so in love with
your idea, that no argument will ever penetrate your defensive
shield.
Please look up
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
time-nuts@febo.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] crystal oscillators TPLL
Thanks Don
For all the nuts that want the analysis with math and fancy papers on how
(or why) the TPLL works.
They will find
On 23 June 2010 03:29, Poul-Henning Kamp p...@phk.freebsd.dk wrote:
In message 8f43d37e769b4caab3309830e40dd...@warcon28gz, WarrenS writes:
That is really all there is to it, if one starts with Frequency differences,
like the TPLL, and not Phase, like most other methods, to get the raw data
to
Poul,
On 23 June 2010 06:55, Poul-Henning Kamp p...@phk.freebsd.dk wrote:
In message 0c4f750835264e13ab61d4b8c8448...@warcon28gz, WarrenS writes:
you have a very tough row to hoe when it comes to proving
that your frequency samples represent the same signal as a sequence
of zero deadtime
Poul,
I can see that you are somewhat frustrated with all of this but let's
please try to understand what is going on with the design and not get
bogged down with interpersonal issues.
On 23 June 2010 09:35, Poul-Henning Kamp p...@phk.freebsd.dk wrote:
In message
staying away from this thread from now on, it's going
nowhere.
Regards,
Bob
- Original Message -
From: Steve Rooke
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 9:04 PM
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] crystal oscillators TPLL
Poul,
I can
PM
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] crystal oscillators TPLL
On 23 June 2010 04:36, Robert Benward rbenw...@verizon.net wrote:
So now we, those that want a little more than faith, are nuts. Some day
when you learn how to speak to people
33 matches
Mail list logo
