[time-nuts] Comparing PPS from 2 GPS units
SAIDJACK at aol.com
SAIDJACK at aol.com
Sat Dec 15 04:07:03 UTC 2012
Hi Tom,
but they could have achieved the same exact result by using scientific
notation such as:
2.3E-010
or:
2.30E-010
or:
23E-011
to note the higher internal resolution in the later case.
I realize that one can easily parse these raw outputs, if one can write
python or C etc quickly, but I always find myself doing "search and replace:
'* u' with '0E-06" in Word etc..
Also I don't happen to have a 1us long and accurate delay line, and I have
to measure two pulses very close to each other, so I have no real choice in
the matter at this time. The jitter can be up to +/-1us, so I need that
1us delay to keep the values positive.
It would be good if the programmers would have added options to select the
output format, and how to count time intervals close to zero when going
negative. This should have been very easy to add in the counter's software.
Maybe there is a Windows executable out there that can parse raw 53132A
counter log files, recognize what the data is, and turn them into proper
scientific notation as well as handling the 0.999,999,999 second issue, that
can then be directly read by programs such as Excel, Plotter, etc?
Time-Nuts, anyone willing to write this for the benefit of all?
bye,
Said
In a message dated 12/13/2012 22:55:42 Pacific Standard Time,
tvb at LeapSecond.com writes:
> Absolutely horrible to parse, these guys should have heard of scientific
> notation. Not sure who programmed that unit, or if there is a firmware
> upgrade that gives proper numbers.
They are more proper than you think. Do you remember one of the first
lessons in high-school science class: scientific measurements have both value
and precision. Thus 2.3 is not the same as 2.30 which is not the same as
2.300. Precision is important. When the 53132A adds "*" it conveys to the user
that precision is missing.
/tvb
More information about the time-nuts
mailing list