I agree, but there is a difference between something that you should be able to achieve by design and being able to prove it, or even if it's useful in practice. In a case like this, the wide span between resolution and effective bits makes me wonder what's the point of advertising the former other than bragging rights?
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:38 PM, David <[email protected]> wrote: > Integrating converters including delta-sigma converters can be no > missing codes by design without being able to take advantage of the > full resolution that implies. Integral nonlinearity, drift, and noise > will limit the usable resolution. > > On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 15:08:38 -0600, Didier Juges <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >How long does it take to prove it? > >And what's the point? > > > > > >On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Gerhard Hoffmann <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Am 10.12.2012 21:53, schrieb Didier Juges: > >> > >> I do not understand how anyone can guaranty no missing codes when the > >>> lower > >>> 11 bits are essentially noise? (31 bits resolution versus 20 effective > >>> bits) > >>> > >> > >> With that much noise it is really guaranteed that no code will be > missing. > >> > >> :-) Gerhard > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > _______________________________________________ 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.
