[time-nuts] crystal oscillators & TPLL
rbenward at verizon.net
Wed Jun 23 03:13:37 UTC 2010
It is admirable that you stick up for Warren. Part of Warren's problem is
his disrespect for some of the other commenters of his work. The name
calling and put downs just does not endear him to anyone. Saying to someone
that they made a dumb mistake, and if they can't see the obvious then, that
is their fault and he doesn't care, just not the way to get people on your
side. And as for my comments, well, you weren't the one getting the private
emails from him.
The crux of Warren's problem lies with your comment, "It's not easy for
anyone to share their hard work for peer review". All he has submitted is
verbal claims, he has really not submitted anything for peer review. This
is what everyone has been asking for. We are just supposed to take his word
for it. I asked him a question and all I got was obfuscation and obtuse
analogies. I really don't think he understands the underlying concepts,
but if he does, then he certainly chooses incorrect words to describe them.
In my vast experience in the engineering field, if someone can't explain
simple concepts, then they probably don't fully understand them. I am
certainly not an expert in this field, but I can tell when someone is
groping. He makes statements that are factually misleading, sort of like
saying the power in the coax is 70V. The use of inappropriate units is
direct indication of a lack of understanding. Saying his oscillators are
within femtoseconds of accuracy to each other is fundamentally incorrect,
and is not the same as saying the fractional frequency error is in
femtoseconds. Loosely swapping units back and forth is due to that lack of
Warren has dug himself into his own hole and he is just wallowing in his own
In any case, I'm staying away from this thread from now on, it's going
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Rooke
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 9:04 PM
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] crystal oscillators & TPLL
I can see that you are somewhat frustrated with all of this but let's
please try to understand what is going on with the design and not get
bogged down with interpersonal issues.
On 23 June 2010 09:35, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk at phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
> In message <415E11EFEC7B46FFB05A790F4F4A4D4D at Warcon28Gz>, "WarrenS"
>>So is there some part that is not obvious to you?
> Yes, it is painfully obvious to me, that you are so in love with
> your idea, that no argument will ever penetrate your defensive
This fact is painfully obvious to all of us but that does not mean it
is a bad thing, it's just that Warren is very passionate about what he
has done and he is obviously going to be defensive against anything
that he feels attacks his baby. It's not easy for anyone to share
their hard work for peer review and it really depends on the reactions
of the peers as to how the original submitter takes the feedback.
> Please look up the proper scientific response to your
> results in the following handy table:
> Observation Action
> Results worse than expected Find out what went wrong.
> Results as expected Find out what went wrong.
> Results better than expected Find out what went wrong.
Interesting table. Maybe you would have been more constructive in
saying that any experimental method has limitations and errors. These
need to be noted along with any results as they form part of the
Let's kick this off. The R/C filter which feeds off the PLL loop and
onto the ADC has a BW that limits measurements below 0.1s. The effect
of drift in the reference oscillator will affect the results of the
longer tau and test results show that the upper limitation seems to be
in the order of 100s. Now the reference oscillator could have it's
drift analysed over a period and so the effects of this could be
mathematically removed from the measurements thereby improving the
results and possibly extending the upper limitation.
One thing that we have to bear in mind is that any drift in the DUT,
say, if it is an xo, will result in "distortion" of any results for
long tau anyway as ADEV is not suited to handle oscillator drift. This
will cloud the measurement of some times of noise, like random-walk,
and this should be born in mind with any ADEV measurement
> Please do not reply to this email, I have no desire to
> have further correspondence with you.
Does that include me too?
Steve - another 'nix nut
> Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
> phk at FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956
> FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
> Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to
> and follow the instructions there.
Steve Rooke - ZL3TUV & G8KVD
The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once.
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
and follow the instructions there.
More information about the time-nuts