Hi Warren, how do I change the com port in Lady Heather software. Thank You Best regards, Sal C. Cornacchia Electronic RF Microwave Engineer (Ret.)
________________________________ From: WarrenS <warrensjmail-...@yahoo.com> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency <time-nuts@febo.com> Sent: Thu, June 17, 2010 1:29:57 AM Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Advantages & Disadvantages of the TPLL Method Charles > I'm curious how you determined that the oscillators are being held to > within femtoseconds of each other. I done it several ways including measuring the PD output. You seem to be missing how insignificant an 1-e6 injection locking to EFC gain ratio is. I can't detail, to your satisfaction, all the hundreds of test that show no significant effect of so many different things. For an independent test that may help you with things you missed see: http://www.ke5fx.com/tpll.htm ws *************** [time-nuts] Advantages & Disadvantages of the TPLL Method Charles P. Steinmetz charles_steinmetz at lavabit.com Thu Jun 17 02:10:31 UTC 2010 Warren wrote: >Charles Posted: > >>How much EFC is required depends, in part, on the strength of the pulling. >>There are three varying inputs. > >NOT at ALL what my test have shown so I guess we do NOT agree on this. >The point you missed, is only the EFC is changing significantly >because of the high gain and BW. >It insures the two Oscillators are held to within femtoseconds of >each other, to at least out to the e-16 at large taus. >So other things are held constant enough that their effects are kept >below any ref Osc effects. Why must everything be a matter of other people missing something? I understand how oscillators behave with respect to injection pulling/locking, and how that might affect the operation and accuracy of a system such as you are using. I myself noted that Magnus had suggested the effect may not be significant in such a system, but that drawing that conclusion for any particular design would require careful experiments and, hopefully, backup by mathematical analysis. How is that missing anything? >The "carefully constructed experiments", that show it works as >advertised have been done, and the most important ones have been posted. Forgive me if I missed something, but all I saw regarding the relative gains of the error loop and the injection loop were (i) that you "increased the coupling by a factor of 1000" and (ii) that you used a variable attenuator. If you did carefully designed experiments, nothing I saw posted suggested it. This is a potentially important point because some oscillators one might want to test (or use as a reference) may be very much more sensitive to injection locking (pulling, actually) than the ones you are using. Therefore, the behavior should be characterized so users can determine whether it might affect their results. "It didn't seem to have any effect using the oscillators I had" is not really a very useful characterization of the behavior. [I do see that in a subsequent message you asked for suggestions for further tests.] I'm curious how you determined that the oscillators are being held to within femtoseconds of each other. And, how many femtoseconds? Best regards, Charles _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.