Hi Bob,

There is so many things that could be done differently if we started with a clean sheet. I was intentionally not going down that road but more thinking about practical setups with the stuff we have, or very small additions.

Cheers,
Magnus

On 10/09/2016 07:26 PM, Bob Camp wrote:
Hi


On Oct 9, 2016, at 1:22 PM, Magnus Danielson <mag...@rubidium.dyndns.org> wrote:

Hi Bob and Bob,

This is why the two-counter setup is so messy, you have to have software that 
will sync up and query them alternatively. You also need to make sure you get 
the counters to trigger. Besides, another issue is that difference in the two 
counters read-outs will cause a false signal, so calibration and compensation 
becomes important to remove that.

That’s why I believe the time tagger + counter is the better solution rather 
than multiple counters. Let it give you the global information and then use it 
to sort out what you see from the counter. Yes, a full blown multi channel time 
tagger with picosecond resolution would be better still. That’s going to cost 
more than $5….

Bob


Using a picket fence type of triggering approach is cheaper and easier to 
maintain. Some mild software support for the processing and it will work like a 
charm. Calibration for true zero offset is needed, but relatively easy to 
implement, you want that anyway.

Cheers,
Magnus

On 10/09/2016 07:02 PM, Bob Stewart wrote:
Hi Bob,
I had actually thought about making a server for the Prologix Ethernet adapters, but I 
gave up when I considered the issue of two processes trying to claim the same device.  
I've experimented with using a C program to capture multiple GPIB ports to a live file.  
But, I can't figure out how to get the "live" part to work when running Timelab 
on a Windows client in a Virtual Box under a Linux server that is collecting the data.  I 
think Santa may have to bring me another GPIB adapter this Christmas.

Bob
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AE6RV.com

GFS GPSDO list:
groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/GFS-GPSDOs/info

     From: Bob Camp <kb...@n1k.org>
To: Bob Stewart <b...@evoria.net>; Discussion of precise time and frequency 
measurement <time-nuts@febo.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 9, 2016 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] TimeLab

Hi

On Oct 9, 2016, at 12:27 PM, Bob Stewart <b...@evoria.net> 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 <kb...@n1k.org>
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement <time-nuts@febo.com>
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 <mag...@rubidium.dyndns.org> 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 -- 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.



_______________________________________________
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.

_______________________________________________
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.

_______________________________________________
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.

Reply via email to