That's easy, Magnus. Do not use a Fluke counter :-)
Don

On 2016-10-09 13:02, KA2WEU--- via time-nuts wrote:
You guys never give up, happy Sunday


In a message dated 10/9/2016 2:46:02 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

Hi,

Agree. However, one need to make sure that the counter triggering never
flukes a measurement.

There is a few things  missing to make it work much much better.

Cheers,
Magnus

On  10/09/2016 08:35 PM, Bob Camp wrote:
Hi

I understand the “keep it simple” concept, even if I rarely practice it
:)

 I would indeed like to get time tagging of phase measurements better
integrated with some of these
tools. The whole “was that a dropout in the signal or a counter issue”
thing is rarely handled in a
very good fashion. It also just happens to be a pretty good addition to
a comb  measurement system
as well.

 Bob


On Oct 9, 2016, at 1:33 PM, Magnus Danielson
<[email protected]> wrote:

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
<[email protected]>  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 <[email protected]>
To:  Bob Stewart <[email protected]>; Discussion of precise time and
frequency  measurement <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday,  October 9, 2016 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: [time-nuts]  TimeLab

 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.

 _______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.

--
Dr. Don Latham
PO Box 404, Frenchtown, MT, 59834
VOX: 406-626-4304

_______________________________________________
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