[time-nuts] TPLL

Bob Tetrault r.tetrault at comcast.net
Wed Jun 23 17:10:15 UTC 2010

Dear Steve,

In a word: WORD! Nowhere, in my recent experience, has the "expert" 
syndrome been so painfully obvious.

Ah, the ecstasy of sanctimony!

On 6/23/2010 5:00 AM, time-nuts-request at febo.com wrote:
> Send time-nuts mailing list submissions to
> 	time-nuts at febo.com
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	time-nuts-request at febo.com
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	time-nuts-owner at febo.com
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of time-nuts digest..."
> Today's Topics:
>     1. Re: crystal oscillators&  TPLL (Steve Rooke)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 19:17:43 +1200
> From: Steve Rooke<sar10538 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] crystal oscillators&  TPLL
> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
> 	<time-nuts at febo.com>
> Message-ID:
> 	<AANLkTinden2NaSybfXjcZQHQHT9YPqU6DBu7iaLSJ7Gt at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Bob,
> On 23 June 2010 15:13, Robert Benward<rbenward at verizon.net>  wrote:
>> Steve,
>> It is admirable that you stick up for Warren. ?Part of Warren's problem is
> Now, let's please get this straight, I have been trying to act as a
> facilitator in all of this because I believe that I know what the ral
> problem is here and perhaps we will touch upon that a bit later.
>> 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
> OK, but this is not entirely his own fault, it's just a symptom of the
> illness that has been going on here for some considerable time now,
> again, more on this later.
>> side. ?And as for my comments, well, you weren't the one getting the private
>> emails from him.
> And I have also not been privy to any emails you may have sent to 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
> Indeed, now read that statement very carefully as there is more to it
> than meets the eye.
>> verbal claims, he has really not submitted anything for peer review. ?This
> Well, this may be the the real crux of the problem here. From Warren's
> point of view, he has submitted what he not only thinks is what is
> required, it's also mostly all that he has to submit. More on that in
> a minute but I guess that you really need to define to him what should
> be submitted to enable a peer review of this. Do you see what I'm
> getting at here, he does not know exactly what you need and I suspect
> you are going to ask for something that he cannot supply.
>> 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
> Right, now you have answered the main point here when you say "In my
> vast experience in the engineering field" because Warren is not in the
> same boat as you so how do you really expect him to be able to
> communicate in your language, using your terms correctly, which a lot
> of you seem to be bullying out of him.
>> simple concepts, then they probably don't fully understand them. ?I am
> Well, maybe he does not have the deep concepts of engineering theory
> BUT that does not mean that he has not come up with something useful
> here. Your statement above usually comes before the technical buff
> totally dismissing the less technical buff just because he cannot talk
> in the correct terms and concepts. I have repeatedly said that there
> is a difference between professional and amateur engineering here,
> especially as this was developed experimentally, IE. it was not fully
> designed on paper before it was tested, it was worked out practically
> and with a lot of logical thought. That doesn't degrade from the
> effort or make it second best.
>> 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
>> understanding.
> OK, so he does not have the depth of theory that you have but have you
> even wondered why someone would seemingly BS (don't take this wrong
> Warren, I'm working on a point here) to a bunch of people who can
> state "In my vast experience in the engineering field" without it
> being spotted. He is not stupid but has been put in a difficult
> position, do I just drop this thing and let those technical snobs just
> go on and believe they know everything there is to know or shall I try
> to get this over as I believe a lot of people here would benefit from
> it, perhaps not the professional engineers but the quantity of
> amateurs who are looking for a tool like this. IN fact, given it's
> limitations, it seems to give very good results in all the tests that
> it has been given. Warren is not saying that you should dump your TSC
> whatever and just use his "$10" as it is better, try getting that past
> your boss, "well this result must be correct as the $10 tester said
> so".
> Now, you, and many others on this list, are very good at communicating
> in a very technical way but you seem to be lacking the ability to
> communicate at a simpler level that would resolve this situation. You
> may, of course, consider this below you and a waste of time, but
> that's your call. I would suggest that before we get into the deep
> technical analysis, perhaps we HELP Warren describe has implementation
> in ways that he can understand. I tried to start this process off in a
> previous posting but that has not been replied to as yet. I'm sure
> that some of you could work out the theory behind this provided that
> you take the right approach. A lot of you have claimed that members of
> this list have tried to help with this, well that's exactly what is
> needed but historically when this was first published there was some
> considerable negative responses from some quarters and it is that that
> has made Warren less than happy to do a show and tell. Some people
> have asked for a published component level schematic but I know what
> will happen if that occurs, some parties are bound to pick holes in it
> in a negative way and that will get us nowhere. Heck, I don't have a
> component schematic and I'm probably closer to Warren than any of you
> BUT I can see how it works logically as it is so so simple. Sure, I
> don't know the transfer functions, the noise floor, the whatever, but
> I don't necessarily have to know that to understand it. You feel
> otherwise and your help would enable Warren to put some number limits
> around it so he could quote some sort of accuracy and limitations. Are
> you in?
> If it comes down to it, I will reverse engineer the block schematic
> that Warren posted, it's out there so it's public. You can then deal
> with me if that would help.
>> Warren has dug himself into his own hole and he is just wallowing in his own
>> verbosity.
> I think he was just trying to dig the hole to try and hide from the onslaught.
>> In any case, I'm staying away from this thread from now on, it's going
>> nowhere.
> Well, that's a shame, but it's your call.
> Best regards,
> Steve
>> Regards,
>> Bob
>> ?----- 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
>> ?Poul,
>> ?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"
>> writes:
>> ?>>Poul-Henning posted
>> ?>
>> ?>>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
>> ?>  shield.
>> ?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
>> ?answer.
>> ?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
>> incompetence.
>> ?>
>> ?>  _______________________________________________
>> ?>  time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
>> ?>  To unsubscribe, go to
>> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>> ?>  and follow the instructions there.
>> ?>
>> ?--
>> ?Steve Rooke - ZL3TUV&  G8KVD
>> ?The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once.
>> ?- Einstein
>> ?_______________________________________________
>> ?time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at 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 at febo.com
>> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>> and follow the instructions there.

More information about the time-nuts mailing list