Re: [time-nuts] A philosophy of science view on the tight pll discussion

2010-06-07 Thread Steve Rooke
There is much to learn and there will always be much to learn, we only have to look at history for examples of this. Providing we never loose understanding of this point, our path to enlightenment will always be open. Steve On 5 June 2010 23:58, Magnus Danielson mag...@rubidium.dyndns.org wrote:

Re: [time-nuts] A philosophy of science view on the tight pll discussion

2010-06-05 Thread Magnus Danielson
On 06/03/2010 02:15 PM, Ulrich Bangert wrote: Gentlemen, the discussion between Bruce and Warren concerning Warren's implementation of NIST's Tight PLL Method has caused quite a stir in our group. My scientifical knowledge about the discussed topic is so much inferior compared to Bruce's one

Re: [time-nuts] A philosophy of science view on the tight pll discussion

2010-06-05 Thread Steve Rooke
So, at best, it's an estimate. Steve On 5 June 2010 23:07, Magnus Danielson mag...@rubidium.dyndns.org wrote: On 06/03/2010 02:15 PM, Ulrich Bangert wrote: Gentlemen, the discussion between Bruce and Warren concerning Warren's implementation of NIST's Tight PLL Method has caused quite a

Re: [time-nuts] A philosophy of science view on the tight pll discussion

2010-06-05 Thread Steve Rooke
You didn't have to read it all, no one forced you and in terms of physical bandwidth, I would not expect anyone to seriously read any group list on a cellphone, let alone one connected at less than 3G speeds. Nice poem BTW, I must read more of him. Steve On 5 June 2010 09:30, Arthur Dent

Re: [time-nuts] A philosophy of science view on the tight pll discussion

2010-06-05 Thread Magnus Danielson
On 06/05/2010 01:19 PM, Steve Rooke wrote: So, at best, it's an estimate. Yes. How good it is, how fast you get it, how much you pay for it and how much effort it is to get and operate is the issue. Getting accurate measurements is hard to prove actually. Getting sufficiently good

Re: [time-nuts] A philosophy of science view on the tight pll discussion

2010-06-05 Thread jimlux
Magnus Danielson wrote: Also, modern cheap programmable TCXOs break the model as they have a hump in the phase noise due to their locked PLL, which the original model does not allow for. The autocorrelation function will be quite different. Notice how this ripples over to other locked

Re: [time-nuts] A philosophy of science view on the tight pll discussion

2010-06-05 Thread Stanley Reynolds
I have no problem with strong points of view, in some ways it increases my enthusiasm for the topic. The medium of email does have it's limits, but why censor or ignore the discussion if it includes these indications of a strong belief in ones view ?  We have many dry papers to read please

Re: [time-nuts] A philosophy of science view on the tight pll discussion

2010-06-04 Thread Mark Kahrs
I for one, have grown tired of the ad-hominem anti-intellectual attacks. This is supposed to be about science and engineering, not words. Therefore, I'd like to see analysis. As Lord Kelvin put it: In physical science the first essential step in the direction of learning any subject is to find

Re: [time-nuts] A philosophy of science view on the tight pll discussion

2010-06-04 Thread Steve Rooke
So a tree is a physical object, its workings can be understood by botanical analysis, but just how do you quantify its beauty in numbers or equations then? And before you try to wriggle out of this, the beauty of a tree is a physical artefact because it imbues a reaction in the viewer. 2+3*6=20

[time-nuts] A philosophy of science view on the tight pll discussion

2010-06-04 Thread Arthur Dent
This out-of-control thread has been a total waste of bandwidth for some time now. I feel that I should be embarrassed for some of the posters here because they appear to have no sense of shame. this thread reminds me of a Robert Frost poem about choices that isn't any more off topic than some

[time-nuts] A philosophy of science view on the tight pll discussion

2010-06-03 Thread Ulrich Bangert
Gentlemen, the discussion between Bruce and Warren concerning Warren's implementation of NIST's Tight PLL Method has caused quite a stir in our group. My scientifical knowledge about the discussed topic is so much inferior compared to Bruce's one that I don't have the heart to enter a

Re: [time-nuts] A philosophy of science view on the tight pll discussion

2010-06-03 Thread J. L. Trantham
Thanks, I had not thought about this in years. Joe -Original Message- From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On Behalf Of Ulrich Bangert Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 7:16 AM To: Time nuts Subject: [time-nuts] A philosophy of science view on the tight pll

Re: [time-nuts] A philosophy of science view on the tight pll discussion

2010-06-03 Thread Steve Rooke
Ulrich, So what's this got to do with black sheep. Was this some form of Freudian slip by you Ulrich :) So, lets examine what we are looking at here, this has now been simplified down to a single true or false value which would be of value if we were looking at a single single data point. That

Re: [time-nuts] A philosophy of science view on the tight pll discussion

2010-06-03 Thread WarrenS
Ulrich posted a bunch of logic stuff, some of which I did not understand. but I do think he missed the main point This does not need to prove what does and doesn't work with every example, only prove that is needed to answer ALL of Bruce's clams and concerns is if Oversampling will give

Re: [time-nuts] A philosophy of science view on the tight pll discussion

2010-06-03 Thread Bob Camp
Hi To move the example to a time nuts centric view: I can fire up z38xx and run it on my 3805 for a couple of days. Bring up the time variances window and a lot of graphs come up. The graphs clearly show that MTIE and TIE are different than ADEV for the data set. The graphs might lead you

Re: [time-nuts] A philosophy of science view on the tight pll discussion

2010-06-03 Thread Don Latham
Does it mean that if you have a can of white spray paint, you can produce a white crow? Don WarrenS Ulrich posted a bunch of logic stuff, some of which I did not understand. but I do think he missed the main point This does not need to prove what does and doesn't work with every example,

Re: [time-nuts] A philosophy of science view on the tight pll discussion

2010-06-03 Thread Didier Juges
WarrenS warrensjmail-...@yahoo.com wrote: Ulrich posted a bunch of logic stuff, some of which I did not understand. but I do think he missed the main point I personally think Warren missed the point entirely, but it's just my opinion. This statement is a good summary of what has