In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Seaman writes: >> if you look at *any* form of PLL (circuit or software), then you >> will find that its very purpose is to implement "rubber seconds", >> that is to implement phase adjustments via low-pass filtered >> temporary changes in frequency. > >An excellent observation.
But missing the point entirely: We use PLL because we want to steer things to be synchronous, not because we see them as a means to implement rubber seconds. >> 1000 seconds is an incredible silly chosen number in an operational >> context. At the very least make it 15, 30 or 60 minutes. > >I would tend to agree with this. The Babylonians must have their >kilogram of flesh. How about 10 minutes - 5 before midnight and 5 >after? That's far to big a torque: 16666.6666 PPM >> Advantages: >> >> Sufficient resolution to represent any likely physical >> measurement or realizable frequency for the forseeable >> future (13.8e-18 seconds resolution). > >Any guess at "likely physical measurements" is going to fall short >for some purposes. For one thing, one might want to represent >theoretical values in addition to experimental. That said, you are >likely correct for "our purposes". Heisenberg, Bohr and Planck has a lesson for you :-) >> Now, please show some backbone and help solve the problem rather >> than add to the general kludgyness of computers. > >Do you find this "tone of voice" productive when collaborating? :-) You know, I've been in computing for so long that I have become alergic to kludges and "quick fixes" of all kinds. The worse and the more hackish they are, the more red spots I get. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
