[email protected] said: > The plots I showed were made with approx. 5*10^6 timestamps per second, so > theoretically I should get approx. 4ps equivalent resolution (or 11+ > significant digits in one second).
Is there a term for what I think you are doing? If I understand (big if), you are doing the digital version of magic down-conversion with an A/D. I can't even think of the name for that. If I have a bunch of digital samples and count the transitions I can conpute a frequency. But I would get the same results if the input frequency was X plus the sampling frequency. Or 2X. ... The digital stream is the beat between the input and the sampling frequency. That technique depends on having a low jitter clock. There should be some good math in there, but I don't see it. A related trick is getting the time from something that ticks slowly, like the RTC/CMOS clocks on PCs. They only tick once per second, but you can get the time with (much) higher resolution if you poll until it ticks. Don't forget about metastability. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. _______________________________________________ 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.
