[time-nuts] A Time-Nut's Worst Nightmare
max at maxsmusicplace.com
Sun May 12 16:49:28 EDT 2013
Seems to me you could make it be ahead part of the time and behind part of
the time by when you started it.
Max. K 4 O DS.
Email: max at maxsmusicplace.com
Transistor site http://www.funwithtransistors.net
Vacuum tube site: http://www.funwithtubes.net
Music site: http://www.maxsmusicplace.com
To subscribe to the fun with transistors group send an email to.
funwithtransistors-subscribe at yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the fun with tubes group send an email to,
funwithtubes-subscribe at yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the fun with wood group send a blank email to
funwithwood-subscribe at yahoogroups.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Magnus Danielson" <magnus at rubidium.dyndns.org>
To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk at phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: "Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement"
<time-nuts at febo.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 8:38 AM
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] A Time-Nut's Worst Nightmare
> On 11/05/13 22:04, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> In message<518E2C65.80204 at rubidium.dyndns.org>, Magnus Danielson writes:
>>> The end result will be a clock which in long term is showing the right
>>> time, but have short term variations. Since it is a lag scheme, it will
>>> also on average be behind.
>> Wouldn't it be easier to simply implement a random walk with a square-law
>> sort of gravity anchored at the right time ?
>> That way it would sometimes be ahead, sometimes behind, but keep
>> correct time on average.
>> And you could make the movement truly random and non-periodic.
>> I'm sure that's how the watchmakers guild did it.
> Having a leaky integrator, or in essence a low-pass filter with
> sufficiently low bandwidth would achieve that. Not to complex.
> y = y + (x-y)*alpha
> The original source isn't very complex anyway. There is a second
> fine-grained modulation as well, having a period of 15 steps every quarter
> of a second. That extends the complete loop to be 32*15 = 480 s or 8 min.
> Never the less, I think it is an interesting exercise in modulation
> analysis in order to figure out the mechanism from the variations alone.
> Random or systematic is indeed interesting to figure out.
> Oh, as to why doing it, well, it's a mockery of normal precise time, and
> fits the "why not?" purpose.
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to
> and follow the instructions there.
More information about the time-nuts