Hi

> On Oct 9, 2016, at 12:27 PM, Bob Stewart <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Bob,
> Is it actually possible to address two devices on one GPIB adapter with 
> Timelab?  I admit to not reading the documentation carefully, but I've not 
> been able to do this directly.  The only way I could think of doing it was to 
> use some software to send the data to a file and then use Timelab to pull the 
> data from the file.  Maybe NI software allows you to configure this?

That was my poorly stated point :) … you would have to add the ability to 
identify and address multiple devices.

Bob

> 
> Bob
>  -----------------------------------------------------------------
> AE6RV.com
> 
> GFS GPSDO list:
> groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/GFS-GPSDOs/info
> 
>      From: Bob Camp <[email protected]>
> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement <[email protected]> 
> Sent: Sunday, October 9, 2016 8:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] TimeLab
> 
> Hi
> 
> Given that *some* of us have more than errr … one counter :)
> 
> There are several setups that involve two or three counters to resolve some 
> of these issues. Having 
> multiple serial ports or multiple devices on a GPIB isn’t that big a problem. 
> Addressing multiple devices
> (setting up the addresses in TimeLab) is an added step. Coming up with 
> standard setups would be the 
> first step. Getting them documented to the degree that they could be run 
> without a lot of hassle would be
> the next step. 
> 
> Another fairly simple addition (rather than a full blown counter) would be 
> some sort of MCU to time tag
> the input(s). It’s a function that is well within the capabilities of a 
> multitude of cheap demo cards. Rather than
> defining a specific card, it is probably better to just define a standard 
> message (115200 K baud, 8N1, starts
> with “$timenuts$,1,”, next is the channel number, after that the (32 bit?) 
> seconds count.The final data field is 
> a time in nanoseconds within the second, *two byte check sum is last, cr/lf). 
> If there is a next generation version that is 
> incompatible, the 1 after timeouts changes to a 2.) Yes, even 10 seconds 
> after typing that definition I can see
> a few problems with it. Any structural similarity to NMEA is purely 
> intentional. That’s why it needs a bit of 
> thought and work before you standardize on it. It still would be a cheap 
> solution and maybe easier to integrate 
> into the software than multiple counters. You do indeed have all the same 
> setup and documentation issues. 
> 
> In any of the above cases, the only intent of the added hardware is to get a 
> number that is good to 10’s of ns. 
> Anything past that is great. Once you know where all the edges really are, 
> sorting out the phase data becomes
> much easier. 
> 
> Bob
> 
>> On Oct 9, 2016, at 7:32 AM, Magnus Danielson <[email protected]> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Fellow time-nuts,
>> 
>> I don't know if it is me who is lazy to not figure TimeLab out better or if 
>> it is room for improvements. I was considering writing this directly to 
>> John, but I gather that it might be of general concern for many, so I 
>> thought it be a good topic for the list.
>> 
>> In one setup I have, I need to measure the offset of the PPS as I upset the 
>> system under test. The counter I'm using is a HP53131A, and I use the 
>> time-interval measure. I have a reference GPS (several actually) which can 
>> output PPS, 10 MHz, IRIG-B004 etc. In itself nothing strange.
>> 
>> In the ideal world of things, I would hook the DUT PPS to the Start (Ch1) 
>> and the reference PPS to the Stop (Ch2) channels. This would give me the 
>> propper Time Error (DUT - Ref) so a positive number tells me the DUT is 
>> ahead of the reference and a negative number tells me that the DUT is behind 
>> the reference.
>> 
>> Now, as I do that, depending on their relative timing I might skip samples, 
>> since the counter expects trigger conditions. While TimeLab can correct for 
>> the period offset, it can't reproduce missed samples.
>> I always get suspicious when the time in the program and the time in real 
>> world does not match up.
>> 
>> I could intentionally shift the PPS output of my DUT to any suitable number, 
>> which would be one way to solve this, if I would tell TimeLab to withdraw 
>> say 100 ms. I might want to do that easily afterhand rather than in the 
>> setup window.
>> 
>> To overcome this, I use the IRIG-B004 output, which is a 100 Hz signal with 
>> a stable rising edge aligned to the PPS to within about 2 ns. Good enough 
>> for my purpose. However, for the trigger to only produce meaningful results, 
>> I will need to swap inputs, so that the PPS from DUT is on Start/Ch1 and the 
>> IRIG-B is on Stop/Ch2. This way I get my triggers right. However, my 
>> readings have opposite sign. I might have forgotten about the way to correct 
>> for it.
>> 
>> However, TimeLab seems unable to unwrap the phase properly, so if I have the 
>> condition where I would get a negative value of say -100 ns then the counter 
>> will measure 9,999,900 ns, so I have to force a positive value as I start 
>> the measurement and then have it trace into the negative. I would very much 
>> like to see that TimeLab would phase-unwrap into +/- period/2 from first 
>> sample. That would be much more useful.
>> 
>> I would also like to have the ability to set an offset from which the 
>> current zoom window use as 0, really a form variant of the 0-base but 
>> letting me either set the value or it be the first value of the zoom. I have 
>> use for both of these. I often find myself fighting the offset issues. In a 
>> similar fashion, I have been unable to change the vertical zoom, if I don't 
>> care about clipping the signal then it forces me to zoom in further than I 
>> like to. The autoscale fights me many times in a fashion I don't like.
>> 
>> OK, so there is a brain-dump of the last couple of weeks on and off 
>> measurement experiences. While a few things might be fixed in the usage, I 
>> wonder if there is not room for improvements in the tool. I thought it 
>> better to describe what I do and why, so that the context is given.
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

_______________________________________________
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.

Reply via email to