-------- [email protected] writes: > Another important point is that of the certainty of the results > of a change. I mean that most hobbyists who have a 5065A, including > me, do not have the opportunity to measure the proposed improvement > effects, first of all because they do not have a reference such as > an HMaser available, nor even such a refined measuring system to > appreciate the improvements made.
Well, this depends exactly what you mean by "measure". There is a big difference in being able to measure, with proper uncertainty intervals, that "A is 7.2% better than B", and merely measuring that "A is better than B (by some unknown amount)" Let me give you a concrete example: I am not kitted out for measuring close-in phase-noise. But if I feed two signals of *very* close frequency to my HP5370, hit "TI", "SAMP=100", and "STDDEV", then it shows me a number which correlates strongly with close-in phase-noise. If after modifying one of the two signal sources, that number drops, I have solid evidence of an improvement in close-in phase-noise. Mind you, I could have improved the phase-noise a LOT, and still see the same number, if the phase-noise of the other source dominated. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [email protected] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com and follow the instructions there.
