I see other problems in the paper as well, for example why did they just plot a time-domain plot of before and after which doesn't really say much. It "looks" less noisy, but that doesn't mean anything. The peak to peak is very similar.
Instead they should have put that data into the freeware plotter, or Stable-32 etc, and shown ADEV plots that can actually discern between before and after. Also, as Matt mentioned if they do only have two dis-similar scopes, then they could have swapped the scopes, and do an interpolation between the two datasets. Or they could have used the "trigger" input in the 500MHz scope (it has one for sure) for the reference, and channels 1 and 2 for the before/after sources. bye, Said In a message dated 4/11/2010 12:36:50 Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: Matt Ettus wrote: > Interesting work. They measured the "before" and "after" signals with > 2 very different oscilloscopes one with 100 MHz BW and one with 500 > MHz, which they shouldn't trust.. I guess they only had 2 2-channel > scopes in their lab. Their methods did leave something to desire, but I thought it might be interesting approach never the less and could maybe be inspiring or at least give a different angle to things. I have been unable to figure out what the frequency is for the XO and what single-shot resolution the detector and the generator. But then, I did not spend quality time over it. Cheers, Magnus _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
