[time-nuts] crystal oscillators & TPLL
sar10538 at gmail.com
Sat Jun 26 13:21:23 UTC 2010
On 26 June 2010 09:46, Gerard PG5G <pg5g at b737.co.uk> wrote:
> I couldn't care less whether your or any method works or not. I have no
> vested interest or opinion whatsoever.
Well, if your not interested in this, why are you bothering us by your
opinions. Perhaps *you* should "leave us alone" unless you have
something useful to say.
> I can say however that in the short time I have been on this list I have
> grown very tired of the way you hijack any thread that comes along.
I wasn't aware that Warren was hijacking "any thread", he has only
been commenting on the TPLL thread that he started a long time back
> Most people who think they have something that is better than ANYTHING done
> before have one of two motives: fame or fortune.
Or wishing to gift something to the community.
> If you are after fame, build one of your TPPL thingies, test it (or better
> yet, have it tested) and submit results to a peer reviewed magazine. Glory
> will be yours.
He has done that here.
> If you are after fortune, build one of your TPPL thingies, test it (or
> better yet, have it tested), manufacture it, sell it. Money will be yours.
He is not interested in fortune, well not per say.
> So I guess what I am trying to say is: build one of your TPPL thingies and
> have it tested.
He already has had this done by a third pay on this list and the
results have been published. Please would you like to review the
archives of this group before you wade in like this.
> I wish you either or both, fame and/or money. I honestly do. However, until
> you have decided what you want out of this and how to go about it, please
> leave us alone.
Well that is very polite coming from someone who has only been here
for a self proclaimed "short time". Perhaps you would like to sit this
one out and just hit Del whenever you see any of the postings on this
Steve - ZL3TUV & G8KVD
> Thank you.
> SK PG5G
> WarrenS 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
>> 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.
> 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