Warren, advice from a friend, stop doing this please. Everyone else, please stop feeding the troll.
Steve On 26 June 2010 08:32, WarrenS <[email protected]> wrote: > > Charles Posted a bunch of stuff (below), > > Most think I should just ignore him, but I can not help myself, > he has after all made this one just too easy and silly not to respond to. > > I hope Charles did not consider this to be just another "good example" of > all the 'constructive helpful criticism' I've received. > >> His childish tantrums, insults, and outlandish claims are his and his >> alone. > > Funny, I have to wonder if maybe Charles was just reading and referring to > his own posting. > Charles's past and latest posting does show that he has several problems, > both technical as well as emotionally. > Don't we all?, It is just that most have the good sense and taste not to > make them so public. > Sounds to me that he is someone that does need a lot of help, but certainly > not the kind of help I can give. > > Some of the more ironic things, I find in the latest 'attack facts' is his > statement: [paraphrased] > >> [Warren does not understand that all the name calling and insults and >> attacks have been fair attempts by professional engineers to understand >> Warren's TPLL implementation] >> so that they can TRY to ascertain to what degree the TPLL is likely to >> provide useful results over a broader range of conditions than those that >> have been publicly demonstrated. > > 1) why would a professional engineer have to resort to attacks in a fair > attempt to understand something so simple or so old and basic? > > 2) why would the professional engineers need to have more information, when > everything that is needed is already on John's site? > especially if AS CLAMED over and over, they are asking to get this > information from someone that does not even know what he is doing. > > 3) Just how much broader range do they want or need than has already been > publicly demonstrated, that it works good enough from near DC to 100Hz for > every device and noise type it has been tested WITH NO exceptions (limited > only by the controlled OCXO). > > There are some things that I do not Understand, Such as: > > I do not understand, Nor do I really care, what part of this Charles does > not understand. > I will not let his or others shortcoming and non-understandings be MY > problem > > Also posted: >> >> I know [some] have said more than once that we should just ignore "the >> femtosecond thing," but why? >> (Not that anything turns on this one claim anyway) > > Just because of Charles's and others own non-understandings and limitations, > why one would then feel it is MY reasonability to try and educate someone > like that is way beyond my understanding. > but > > I'll try again to comment on the femto second thing, since some seem to be > hung up on that part most of all. > In order to work good (which no one seems to be denying any more), the TPLL > method has to hold the two Oscillator's phase differences real, real close > OVER the Bandwidth of interest. > Anyone that can understand what limits a noise floor plot, can see that the > phase differences are being held to about 10 fs at 100 Hz, from the data > posted on John's site. > > Anyone that can do simple math and has a vary basic understanding of the > TPLLs could calculate for their self with the BW information given in John's > site, > that the TPLL is "trying" to hold the phase difference over the Bandwidth of > interest from DC to 1 KHz down to single digit Femtoseconds varation for > low noise oscillators. > If you do not have a favorite Phase detector to use, can use the > mini-Circuits SYPD-1 for you calculations, (or any other), > > A little less obvious but still very easy to calculate with simple math (OK, > just a little harder than 2+2, but not by too much), > is that the noise floor limit of a good low noise AMP can give about 1 fs of > phase differences between the two Oscillators OVER the Bandwidth of > importance. > If you do not have a favorite low noise op amp to use, one can use the op-27 > for their calculations, (or many others), > > If Charles or anyone would like to do and post the SIMPLE math to show that > ANY of femtosecond stuff above is not true, > and their answer turns out to be different than mine, I'd be more than > willing to show what they did wrong or different than me. > > The fact that Charles and others seem to be confusing 10 MHz Phase jitter > with 100 Hz and below bandwidth limited Phase differences do > show they have a few major things missing in their understanding about > what ADEV is and how it is a frequency stability value over a limited time > and Bandwidth called tau. > > Also if anyone still thinks they can make a reasonable data set file that > shows where the TPLL will mess up, Go for it. > I'm still willing to try and prove to all that will NOT EVER be the case. > OR is it still OK for some expert to make an unsubstantiated and false clam > that would be easy to prove wrong given a chance, > If they just reference some paper that has meaningless information because > it does not apply to this method. > > ws > ********************* > ********************* > [time-nuts] crystal oscillators & TPLL > Charles P. Steinmetz charles_steinmetz at lavabit.com > Fri Jun 25 07:05:59 UTC 2010 > > Steve wrote: > >> I agree with what you say and really wish we could move forward >> with this. The only thing that is preventing this happening is the >> expected reaction that will occur when/if that information is ever >> released. Unfortunately the concept of constructive criticism is an >> anathema to some members of this list and this is the blockage. > > I must disagree. I suppose it's good for Warren to have an > apologist, but you are simply not getting the facts right. Warren > seems to be unable to deal with constructive criticism. > > What you characterize as attacks by "arrogant naysayers" (and as > professional engineers looking down on amateur engineers) has, to my > reading, been a fair attempt by other listmembers to understand > Warren's TPLL implementation so that they can try to ascertain to > what degree it is likely to provide useful results over a broader > range of conditions than those that have been publicly > demonstrated. As we have asked for more details so we can try to do > this, Warren has responded in every case -- every case -- with vague > allusions to details of his implementation and testing he has done, > childish accusations that nobody understands anything and we all must > think he can't add two and two, followed by more and more outlandish > claims about what his device does (for just one example, "the simple > analog TPLL method holds the Phase difference [between the reference > and test oscillators] to zero (with-in 1 femtosecond)" -- Wed, 9 Jun > 2010 21:05:57 -0700), which (i) cannot be true and (ii) appear to > demonstrate that Warren not only has not tested at least some of the > things that he is claiming, but seems not to understand much of the > basic subject matter. Warren has had more than ample opportunity to > answer any criticism by saying calmly that he did "a" (with a decent > explanation of what "a" is) and got "x" result, and similarly with > "b" and "y," "c" and "z," etc., but he has not once done so. One > might reasonably conclude after all of the smokescreens and refusals > that he has not, in fact, done any of the things to which he has > vaguely alluded. > > I know you have said more than once that we should just ignore "the > femtosecond thing," but why? (Not that anything turns on this one > claim anyway -- there are plenty of others like it.) You yourself > called it into question (Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:05:26 +1200). It is a > claim Warren made, and very specifically -- not that a femtosecond is > the resolution of the test method stated in units of time (which > others have advanced to try to explain what he meant), but that his > PLL locks two 10 MHz oscillators to within one femtosecond of each > other and that he has verified this in several ways. If Warren > claims this thing (and numerous others that can easily be found in > the voluminous record) that must be mistaken (or worse), what else > that he has claimed can we trust? When you read the posts and make > the inferences that Warren's statements invite (in many cases, > seemingly inescapably), it appears that the only trustworthy > information we have about the operation of Warren's TPLL is what John > published -- which indicates that the method has promise -- perhaps > even considerable promise -- but is far from the proof Warren seems > to think it is that his device fulfills all of his claims or has been > characterized to the point that others can predict under what > conditions they can rely on it. > > So, please, don't make Warren out as the poor, well-meaning basement > inventor being bashed by the "professionals." His childish tantrums, > insults, and outlandish claims are his and his alone. Even if we > assume for the sake of argument that he was hard done by (which I do > not believe is true), that would not excuse his responses. It would > have been one thing to say, "Hey, I put this together and it seems to > work pretty well" and leave it at that, but that is not what Warren did. > > Best regards, > > Charles > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- Steve Rooke - ZL3TUV & G8KVD The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once. - Einstein _______________________________________________ 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.
