In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dr Bruce Griffiths writes: >> A quantum of 1ns is not a concern if the attack point for the PLL >> is on the order of hours. >> >This statement is only true when one is disciplining or monitoring >relatively with sufficiently large frequency and/or phase instabilities. >When one wishes to discipline an Oscilloquartz 8607 OCXO for example >every nanosecond or fraction thereof matters.
As far as I can see on TVB's site, the 8607 is about [EMAIL PROTECTED] sec, so 1ns/1h sounds perfectly good to me. >Its not the coherence of the sawtooth but the coherence between the >oscillator clocking the timer used to position the PPS signal and the >frequency of the PPS signal itself. Yes, those are non-coherent, that is why we need the negative sawtooth in the first place. If they were coherent, we could just have used a formula. -- 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. _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list [email protected] https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
