You don't really need that John, let your good resolution intact
(it won't be a big sized image anyway) and just use the height parameter
to size it as you like but in fixed nr of pixels like I suggested before
to John(n8ur).
It works much better and no need for editing, furthermore the way I
su
Hi,
Page has the pictures using percentage for width and height parameter
and that makes it quite dependent on the browser and window size and
aspect ratio. It is really odd to have it that way.
John (N8UR), you have:
you may go there and replace the line above by:
and it will be great lo
jmi...@pop.net said:
> What I always do is just resize the TimeLab window to be legible, then post
> the img src link without any extra scaling. That works well, as long as you
> turn off any unnecessary fields in the legend table to keep the window width
> reasonable.
> How to present measureme
On 08/05/2012 02:23 PM, John Miles wrote:
Yup... I'm still playing with the screenshots from TimeLab; on my machine by
default they come out at 13xx pixels wide, and I usually size to about 700
wide for web display. As an experiment, I tried using the "WIDTH" and
"HEIGHT" options in the IMG SRC
On 08/05/2012 02:23 PM, John Miles wrote:
Yup... I'm still playing with the screenshots from TimeLab; on my machine by
default they come out at 13xx pixels wide, and I usually size to about 700
wide for web display. As an experiment, I tried using the "WIDTH" and
"HEIGHT" options in the IMG SRC
> Yup... I'm still playing with the screenshots from TimeLab; on my machine by
> default they come out at 13xx pixels wide, and I usually size to about 700
> wide for web display. As an experiment, I tried using the "WIDTH" and
> "HEIGHT" options in the IMG SRC tag, setting to a percentage rather
Yup... I'm still playing with the screenshots from TimeLab; on my machine by
default they come out at 13xx pixels wide, and I usually size to about 700 wide
for web display. As an experiment, I tried using the "WIDTH" and "HEIGHT"
options in the IMG SRC tag, setting to a percentage rather than
> would an AD measurement also benefit from Cross-Correlation or would we
> need
> 2 cross correlated disciplined ocxos for that? Being able to measure AD
> below that of a single reference would be a dream which could help a lot
in
> avoiding to buy a H2 maser for low AD at all taus.
Unfortunatel
Ulrich, DF6JB
> -Ursprungliche Nachricht-
> Von: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com
> [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] Im Auftrag von John Miles
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 5. August 2012 02:12
> An: 'Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement'
> Betreff: Re: [
http://www.febo.com/pages/cross-correlation/index.html
[]
(BTW, something's funky about the way your images are getting scaled... in
both Safari and Firefox, they seem to want to take on the aspect ratio of
the browser window itself, which I've never seen before. Is that
intentional? It make
> They have their own cross-correlation system; it's not highly automated
but
> claims -190 dBc/Hz capability:
> http://www.wenzel.com/pdffiles1/PNTS%201000/BP-1000-CC.pdf
Yes, this is equivalent to the "dual HP 3048A" technique. An inelegant
weapon from a less-civilized age but still, you re
They have their own cross-correlation system; it's not highly automated but
claims -190 dBc/Hz capability:
http://www.wenzel.com/pdffiles1/PNTS%201000/BP-1000-CC.pdf
John
On Aug 4, 2012, at 7:31 PM, Azelio Boriani wrote:
> In your opinion, how the Wenzel company got the data for the ULN
> sp
In your opinion, how the Wenzel company got the data for the ULN
specifications?
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 11:02 PM, Bruce Griffiths wrote:
> John Ackermann N8UR wrote:
>
>> Magnus inspired me to try my own cross-correlation experiment with the
>> TimePod today. I used two fairly normal OCXO frequ
> Magnus inspired me to try my own cross-correlation experiment with the
> TimePod today. I used two fairly normal OCXO frequency standards as the
> reference, and a Wenzel 5 MHz ULN as the device under test.
>
> By doing single-reference measurements of each OCXO versus the ULN, I
> was able to
John Ackermann N8UR wrote:
Magnus inspired me to try my own cross-correlation experiment with the
TimePod today. I used two fairly normal OCXO frequency standards as
the reference, and a Wenzel 5 MHz ULN as the device under test.
By doing single-reference measurements of each OCXO versus the
Magnus inspired me to try my own cross-correlation experiment with the
TimePod today. I used two fairly normal OCXO frequency standards as the
reference, and a Wenzel 5 MHz ULN as the device under test.
By doing single-reference measurements of each OCXO versus the ULN, I
was able to plot the
16 matches
Mail list logo
