[email protected] wrote:
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.
That they didn't use a time-interval counter but scopes kind of
indicates that they may not have been sufficiently equipped for this task.
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.
At least they could have swapped scopes to (hopefully) show that it did
not make any major shift in results. If they did get shifts, then they
would have concluded that the approach was not sufficient, reported that
and then continued with another approach.
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.
What if they would have used any of a line of suitable time-interval
counters?
They should have done their ADEV and TDEV plots for sure. Implementing
them for any of their available sources should not be too hard either.
They do tell that they are using a 100 MHz clock if you look at page 3,
column 2 (with a line-break between 100 and MHz so it is a little hard
to spot).
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.
