[time-nuts] crystal oscillators & TPLL
sar10538 at gmail.com
Sat Jun 26 13:08:24 UTC 2010
Warren, advice from a friend, stop doing this please.
Everyone else, please stop feeding the troll.
On 26 June 2010 08:32, WarrenS <warrensjmail-one at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Charles Posted a bunch of stuff (below),
> Most think I should just ignore him, but I can not help myself,
> he has after all made this one just too easy and silly not to respond to.
> I hope Charles did not consider this to be just another "good example" of
> all the 'constructive helpful criticism' I've received.
>> His childish tantrums, insults, and outlandish claims are his and his
> Funny, I have to wonder if maybe Charles was just reading and referring to
> his own posting.
> Charles's past and latest posting does show that he has several problems,
> both technical as well as emotionally.
> Don't we all?, It is just that most have the good sense and taste not to
> make them so public.
> Sounds to me that he is someone that does need a lot of help, but certainly
> not the kind of help I can give.
> Some of the more ironic things, I find in the latest 'attack facts' is his
> statement: [paraphrased]
>> [Warren does not understand that all the name calling and insults and
>> attacks have been fair attempts by professional engineers to understand
>> Warren's TPLL implementation]
>> so that they can TRY to ascertain to what degree the TPLL is likely to
>> provide useful results over a broader range of conditions than those that
>> have been publicly demonstrated.
> 1) why would a professional engineer have to resort to attacks in a fair
> attempt to understand something so simple or so old and basic?
> 2) why would the professional engineers need to have more information, when
> everything that is needed is already on John's site?
> especially if AS CLAMED over and over, they are asking to get this
> information from someone that does not even know what he is doing.
> 3) Just how much broader range do they want or need than has already been
> publicly demonstrated, that it works good enough from near DC to 100Hz for
> every device and noise type it has been tested WITH NO exceptions (limited
> only by the controlled OCXO).
> There are some things that I do not Understand, Such as:
> I do not understand, Nor do I really care, what part of this Charles does
> not understand.
> I will not let his or others shortcoming and non-understandings be MY
> Also posted:
>> I know [some] have said more than once that we should just ignore "the
>> femtosecond thing," but why?
>> (Not that anything turns on this one claim anyway)
> Just because of Charles's and others own non-understandings and limitations,
> why one would then feel it is MY reasonability to try and educate someone
> like that is way beyond my understanding.
> I'll try again to comment on the femto second thing, since some seem to be
> hung up on that part most of all.
> In order to work good (which no one seems to be denying any more), the TPLL
> method has to hold the two Oscillator's phase differences real, real close
> OVER the Bandwidth of interest.
> Anyone that can understand what limits a noise floor plot, can see that the
> phase differences are being held to about 10 fs at 100 Hz, from the data
> posted on John's site.
> Anyone that can do simple math and has a vary basic understanding of the
> TPLLs could calculate for their self with the BW information given in John's
> that the TPLL is "trying" to hold the phase difference over the Bandwidth of
> interest from DC to 1 KHz down to single digit Femtoseconds varation for
> low noise oscillators.
> If you do not have a favorite Phase detector to use, can use the
> mini-Circuits SYPD-1 for you calculations, (or any other),
> A little less obvious but still very easy to calculate with simple math (OK,
> just a little harder than 2+2, but not by too much),
> is that the noise floor limit of a good low noise AMP can give about 1 fs of
> phase differences between the two Oscillators OVER the Bandwidth of
> If you do not have a favorite low noise op amp to use, one can use the op-27
> for their calculations, (or many others),
> If Charles or anyone would like to do and post the SIMPLE math to show that
> ANY of femtosecond stuff above is not true,
> and their answer turns out to be different than mine, I'd be more than
> willing to show what they did wrong or different than me.
> The fact that Charles and others seem to be confusing 10 MHz Phase jitter
> with 100 Hz and below bandwidth limited Phase differences do
> show they have a few major things missing in their understanding about
> what ADEV is and how it is a frequency stability value over a limited time
> and Bandwidth called tau.
> Also if anyone still thinks they can make a reasonable data set file that
> shows where the TPLL will mess up, Go for it.
> I'm still willing to try and prove to all that will NOT EVER be the case.
> OR is it still OK for some expert to make an unsubstantiated and false clam
> that would be easy to prove wrong given a chance,
> If they just reference some paper that has meaningless information because
> it does not apply to this method.
> [time-nuts] crystal oscillators & TPLL
> Charles P. Steinmetz charles_steinmetz at lavabit.com
> Fri Jun 25 07:05:59 UTC 2010
> Steve wrote:
>> I agree with what you say and really wish we could move forward
>> with this. The only thing that is preventing this happening is the
>> expected reaction that will occur when/if that information is ever
>> released. Unfortunately the concept of constructive criticism is an
>> anathema to some members of this list and this is the blockage.
> I must disagree. I suppose it's good for Warren to have an
> apologist, but you are simply not getting the facts right. Warren
> seems to be unable to deal with constructive criticism.
> What you characterize as attacks by "arrogant naysayers" (and as
> professional engineers looking down on amateur engineers) has, to my
> reading, been a fair attempt by other listmembers to understand
> Warren's TPLL implementation so that they can try to ascertain to
> what degree it is likely to provide useful results over a broader
> range of conditions than those that have been publicly
> demonstrated. As we have asked for more details so we can try to do
> this, Warren has responded in every case -- every case -- with vague
> allusions to details of his implementation and testing he has done,
> childish accusations that nobody understands anything and we all must
> think he can't add two and two, followed by more and more outlandish
> claims about what his device does (for just one example, "the simple
> analog TPLL method holds the Phase difference [between the reference
> and test oscillators] to zero (with-in 1 femtosecond)" -- Wed, 9 Jun
> 2010 21:05:57 -0700), which (i) cannot be true and (ii) appear to
> demonstrate that Warren not only has not tested at least some of the
> things that he is claiming, but seems not to understand much of the
> basic subject matter. Warren has had more than ample opportunity to
> answer any criticism by saying calmly that he did "a" (with a decent
> explanation of what "a" is) and got "x" result, and similarly with
> "b" and "y," "c" and "z," etc., but he has not once done so. One
> might reasonably conclude after all of the smokescreens and refusals
> that he has not, in fact, done any of the things to which he has
> vaguely alluded.
> I know you have said more than once that we should just ignore "the
> femtosecond thing," but why? (Not that anything turns on this one
> claim anyway -- there are plenty of others like it.) You yourself
> called it into question (Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:05:26 +1200). It is a
> claim Warren made, and very specifically -- not that a femtosecond is
> the resolution of the test method stated in units of time (which
> others have advanced to try to explain what he meant), but that his
> PLL locks two 10 MHz oscillators to within one femtosecond of each
> other and that he has verified this in several ways. If Warren
> claims this thing (and numerous others that can easily be found in
> the voluminous record) that must be mistaken (or worse), what else
> that he has claimed can we trust? When you read the posts and make
> the inferences that Warren's statements invite (in many cases,
> seemingly inescapably), it appears that the only trustworthy
> information we have about the operation of Warren's TPLL is what John
> published -- which indicates that the method has promise -- perhaps
> even considerable promise -- but is far from the proof Warren seems
> to think it is that his device fulfills all of his claims or has been
> characterized to the point that others can predict under what
> conditions they can rely on it.
> So, please, don't make Warren out as the poor, well-meaning basement
> inventor being bashed by the "professionals." His childish tantrums,
> insults, and outlandish claims are his and his alone. Even if we
> assume for the sake of argument that he was hard done by (which I do
> not believe is true), that would not excuse his responses. It would
> have been one thing to say, "Hey, I put this together and it seems to
> work pretty well" and leave it at that, but that is not what Warren did.
> Best regards,
> 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.
More information about the time-nuts