Just out of curiosity, ttl.pulse(t) is essentially, ttl.on() delay(t) ttl.off()
How would ttl.pulse_off(t) be different from ttl.off() delay(t) ttl.on() to avoid the problem when t=0 that back to back pulses have? Sincerely, Raghu -----Original Message----- From: Robert Jördens [mailto:r...@m-labs.hk] Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 3:01 PM To: Srinivas, Raghavendra (IntlAssoc) <raghavendra.srini...@nist.gov> Cc: artiq@lists.m-labs.hk Subject: Re: [ARTIQ] [RFC] remove output event replacement feature On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 9:54 PM, Srinivas, Raghavendra (IntlAssoc) <raghavendra.srini...@nist.gov> wrote: >>Back-to-back pulses are troublesome. Is that being used actively? > > As Daniel mentioned, for Ramsey experiments when you're scanning the > delay, when the delay is 0 you'd have two back to back pi/2 pulses. > How would that need to be coded differently? Explicitly, > > ttl.pulse(t_pi/2) > delay(t) > ttl.pulse(t_pi/2) > > and we scan t from 0 onwards. ttl.on() delay(t_pi/2) ttl.pulse_off(t) delay(t_pi/2) ttl.off() would be a natural extension of the API. -- Robert Jördens. _______________________________________________ ARTIQ mailing list https://ssl.serverraum.org/lists/listinfo/artiq
