Empathy List Archives

KW

Kyle Wesson

Thu, Apr 22, 2010 9:06 PM

Hello,

I am trying to simulate oscillator noise by following the procedure
outlined in James Barnes' paper: "Simulation of Oscillator Noise"
(1984) 28th Annual Frequency Control Symposium. In the paper, Barnes
explains the models of the five typical types of noise that occur in
oscillators and a method for their simulation.

I've followed the steps he presents in his paper and have been unable
to produce simulated output for flicker FM noise that leads to an flat
Allan variance graph (ie. all Allan variance values are nearly
constant for all tau values). Instead, the Allan variance values of my
simulated flicker FM noise start out constant at the Allan variance
value I desire but then tend upwards by two to three orders of
magnitude (nearly every simulation) about halfway through the range of
possible tau values. In short, it starts out flat and then increases
rapidly about halfway through the tau range. I believe there may be a
couple possibilities and am wondering if anyone else has come across
the same issues or knows of a solution.

To simulate flicker FM noise, Barnes uses a set of ARIMA
coefficients to model the noise. Is an updated set of coefficients
available that would have better accuracy or produce better simulation
results? Is the ARIMA method typically used with the availability of
today's higher computational power?
Barnes devotes a section of the paper to random number generation
and states that the random numbers to be used should be normally
distributed with zero mean and unit variance. I used the built-in
Matlab command randn() to generate the random data but only achieved
an all-flat Allan variance plot when the random number generator was
seeded with a particular number. The majority of the time (using a
"random" seed), this method produced non-flat results as described
above. I then attempted the two methods Barnes presents in his paper
to generate the random numbers which provided similar non-flat
results.

Are random normally distributed random numbers optimal for these
simulations? Would another distribution produce results consistent
with the expectation of an all-flat (ie. constant) Allan variance for
flicker noise?

I appreciate any advice or ideas you or your colleagues can provide.
As needed I can provide individuals my generated Allan variance plots,
but I didn't want to send them to the whole mailing list.

Thank you in advance,
Kyle

Hello, I am trying to simulate oscillator noise by following the procedure outlined in James Barnes' paper: "Simulation of Oscillator Noise" (1984) 28th Annual Frequency Control Symposium. In the paper, Barnes explains the models of the five typical types of noise that occur in oscillators and a method for their simulation. I've followed the steps he presents in his paper and have been unable to produce simulated output for flicker FM noise that leads to an flat Allan variance graph (ie. all Allan variance values are nearly constant for all tau values). Instead, the Allan variance values of my simulated flicker FM noise start out constant at the Allan variance value I desire but then tend upwards by two to three orders of magnitude (nearly every simulation) about halfway through the range of possible tau values. In short, it starts out flat and then increases rapidly about halfway through the tau range. I believe there may be a couple possibilities and am wondering if anyone else has come across the same issues or knows of a solution. 1) To simulate flicker FM noise, Barnes uses a set of ARIMA coefficients to model the noise. Is an updated set of coefficients available that would have better accuracy or produce better simulation results? Is the ARIMA method typically used with the availability of today's higher computational power? 2) Barnes devotes a section of the paper to random number generation and states that the random numbers to be used should be normally distributed with zero mean and unit variance. I used the built-in Matlab command randn() to generate the random data but only achieved an all-flat Allan variance plot when the random number generator was seeded with a particular number. The majority of the time (using a "random" seed), this method produced non-flat results as described above. I then attempted the two methods Barnes presents in his paper to generate the random numbers which provided similar non-flat results. Are random normally distributed random numbers optimal for these simulations? Would another distribution produce results consistent with the expectation of an all-flat (ie. constant) Allan variance for flicker noise? I appreciate any advice or ideas you or your colleagues can provide. As needed I can provide individuals my generated Allan variance plots, but I didn't want to send them to the whole mailing list. Thank you in advance, Kyle

MD

Magnus Danielson

Thu, Apr 22, 2010 11:27 PM

On 04/22/2010 11:06 PM, Kyle Wesson wrote:

Hello,

I am trying to simulate oscillator noise by following the procedure
outlined in James Barnes' paper: "Simulation of Oscillator Noise"
(1984) 28th Annual Frequency Control Symposium. In the paper, Barnes
explains the models of the five typical types of noise that occur in
oscillators and a method for their simulation.

Have you looked at

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1987/Vol%2019_19.pdf
http://horology.jpl.nasa.gov/papers/FlfmSimPtti.pdf

They are a little more modern. The first paper is a modernisation of
what you have at hand, the second uses an FFT approach.

I've followed the steps he presents in his paper and have been unable
to produce simulated output for flicker FM noise that leads to an flat
Allan variance graph (ie. all Allan variance values are nearly
constant for all tau values). Instead, the Allan variance values of my
simulated flicker FM noise start out constant at the Allan variance
value I desire but then tend upwards by two to three orders of
magnitude (nearly every simulation) about halfway through the range of
possible tau values. In short, it starts out flat and then increases
rapidly about halfway through the tau range. I believe there may be a
couple possibilities and am wondering if anyone else has come across
the same issues or knows of a solution.

To simulate flicker FM noise, Barnes uses a set of ARIMA
coefficients to model the noise. Is an updated set of coefficients
available that would have better accuracy or produce better simulation
results? Is the ARIMA method typically used with the availability of
today's higher computational power?

See above papers.

Barnes devotes a section of the paper to random number generation
and states that the random numbers to be used should be normally
distributed with zero mean and unit variance. I used the built-in
Matlab command randn() to generate the random data but only achieved
an all-flat Allan variance plot when the random number generator was
seeded with a particular number. The majority of the time (using a
"random" seed), this method produced non-flat results as described
above. I then attempted the two methods Barnes presents in his paper
to generate the random numbers which provided similar non-flat
results.

The length of your data record may be an issue. Depending on the random
generator some stretches may behave none-flat locally.

Are random normally distributed random numbers optimal for these
simulations? Would another distribution produce results consistent
with the expectation of an all-flat (ie. constant) Allan variance for
flicker noise?

You are approaching it from the wrong angle. The distribution form is
orthogonal to the white-ness. A standard no-frills random generator of a
normal computer system (say standard UNIX) is normal distributed. This
is no good for even white-noise simulations as the distirbution you want
is gaussian. However, by adding many noise-samples you shape it into
gaussian form. It will never be true gaussian, but it is one
approximation. A better approach is the Box-Mueller transformation, but
it comes at a fairly high price, nothing that a good CORDIC can't solve
thought. The traditional way of adding normal distributed samples
ranging from 0 to 1 is to add 12 of them and subtract the constant 6.
This will not be truely DC-free as the random generator never does 0 but
has at least 1. The solution is to take two samples and subtract them
from each other, then using 6 pairs and add their results. This achieves
the same thing but handles the DC offset issue. The reason for 12 is
that the produced output has the RMS power of 1 (since the RMS amplitude
of the normal distributed noise is 1/sqrt(12) ), so just multiplying
with requested noise amplitude gets the final amplitude correct.

To frequency slope shape the noise the approach used by Barnes is to use
a set of filters to create the 1/f power-law slope and using various
numbers of integrations 1/f^2, 1/f^3 and 1/f^4 can be produced.

The trouble with the filter approach is that it only approximates the -3
dB/Oct slope and has a number of wiggles depending on the number of
poles being employed. Also, depending on the quality of the algorithm
providing the coefficients, the flatness may be more or less good.
You want to use the first paper over the one you used.
The filter-approach has a pass-band for which you get the requested -3
dB/Oct and outside of that you get standard 0 dB/Oct or -6 dB/Oct
responses. I just isn't particularly efficient.

To overcome the range and flattness issues of the filter approach, the
FFT approach to filtering is benefitial.

Thus, when analyzing time-spans covering more and more of the
non-flicker response, the Allan variance will shift character too.

Also consider that the Allan variance estimator will loose statistical
resolution for longer taus as it's effective degrees of freedom becomes
less and less.

I hope you have got some useful hints. Let me know of your progress.

Cheers,
Magnus

On 04/22/2010 11:06 PM, Kyle Wesson wrote: > Hello, > > I am trying to simulate oscillator noise by following the procedure > outlined in James Barnes' paper: "Simulation of Oscillator Noise" > (1984) 28th Annual Frequency Control Symposium. In the paper, Barnes > explains the models of the five typical types of noise that occur in > oscillators and a method for their simulation. Have you looked at http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1987/Vol%2019_19.pdf http://horology.jpl.nasa.gov/papers/FlfmSimPtti.pdf They are a little more modern. The first paper is a modernisation of what you have at hand, the second uses an FFT approach. > I've followed the steps he presents in his paper and have been unable > to produce simulated output for flicker FM noise that leads to an flat > Allan variance graph (ie. all Allan variance values are nearly > constant for all tau values). Instead, the Allan variance values of my > simulated flicker FM noise start out constant at the Allan variance > value I desire but then tend upwards by two to three orders of > magnitude (nearly every simulation) about halfway through the range of > possible tau values. In short, it starts out flat and then increases > rapidly about halfway through the tau range. I believe there may be a > couple possibilities and am wondering if anyone else has come across > the same issues or knows of a solution. > > 1) To simulate flicker FM noise, Barnes uses a set of ARIMA > coefficients to model the noise. Is an updated set of coefficients > available that would have better accuracy or produce better simulation > results? Is the ARIMA method typically used with the availability of > today's higher computational power? See above papers. > 2) Barnes devotes a section of the paper to random number generation > and states that the random numbers to be used should be normally > distributed with zero mean and unit variance. I used the built-in > Matlab command randn() to generate the random data but only achieved > an all-flat Allan variance plot when the random number generator was > seeded with a particular number. The majority of the time (using a > "random" seed), this method produced non-flat results as described > above. I then attempted the two methods Barnes presents in his paper > to generate the random numbers which provided similar non-flat > results. The length of your data record may be an issue. Depending on the random generator some stretches may behave none-flat locally. > Are random normally distributed random numbers optimal for these > simulations? Would another distribution produce results consistent > with the expectation of an all-flat (ie. constant) Allan variance for > flicker noise? You are approaching it from the wrong angle. The distribution form is orthogonal to the white-ness. A standard no-frills random generator of a normal computer system (say standard UNIX) is normal distributed. This is no good for even white-noise simulations as the distirbution you want is gaussian. However, by adding many noise-samples you shape it into gaussian form. It will never be true gaussian, but it is one approximation. A better approach is the Box-Mueller transformation, but it comes at a fairly high price, nothing that a good CORDIC can't solve thought. The traditional way of adding normal distributed samples ranging from 0 to 1 is to add 12 of them and subtract the constant 6. This will not be truely DC-free as the random generator never does 0 but has at least 1. The solution is to take two samples and subtract them from each other, then using 6 pairs and add their results. This achieves the same thing but handles the DC offset issue. The reason for 12 is that the produced output has the RMS power of 1 (since the RMS amplitude of the normal distributed noise is 1/sqrt(12) ), so just multiplying with requested noise amplitude gets the final amplitude correct. To frequency slope shape the noise the approach used by Barnes is to use a set of filters to create the 1/f power-law slope and using various numbers of integrations 1/f^2, 1/f^3 and 1/f^4 can be produced. The trouble with the filter approach is that it only approximates the -3 dB/Oct slope and has a number of wiggles depending on the number of poles being employed. Also, depending on the quality of the algorithm providing the coefficients, the flatness may be more or less good. You want to use the first paper over the one you used. The filter-approach has a pass-band for which you get the requested -3 dB/Oct and outside of that you get standard 0 dB/Oct or -6 dB/Oct responses. I just isn't particularly efficient. To overcome the range and flattness issues of the filter approach, the FFT approach to filtering is benefitial. Thus, when analyzing time-spans covering more and more of the non-flicker response, the Allan variance will shift character too. Also consider that the Allan variance estimator will loose statistical resolution for longer taus as it's effective degrees of freedom becomes less and less. I hope you have got some useful hints. Let me know of your progress. Cheers, Magnus

TV

Tom Van Baak

Fri, Apr 23, 2010 1:55 AM

Hi Kyle,

I looked into this a while ago and just ended up using the
random clock data generators within Stable32. But if you
end up with a code snippet for flicker noise let us know.

You'll find a wealth of ADEV information at Bill Riley's site.
http://www.stable32.com and http://www.wriley.com

You may also find this one-page chart I made very interesting.
It shows phase, frequency, and stability for all five noise types.

http://www.leapsecond.com/pages/allan/Exploring_Allan_Deviation.pdf

A total of 20 plots on a single page. It shows you every ADEV
and MDEV shape you've ever seen.

/tvb

Hi Kyle, I looked into this a while ago and just ended up using the random clock data generators within Stable32. But if you end up with a code snippet for flicker noise let us know. You'll find a wealth of ADEV information at Bill Riley's site. http://www.stable32.com and http://www.wriley.com You may also find this one-page chart I made very interesting. It shows phase, frequency, and stability for all five noise types. <http://www.leapsecond.com/pages/allan/Exploring_Allan_Deviation.pdf> A total of 20 plots on a single page. It shows you every ADEV and MDEV shape you've ever seen. /tvb

BC

Bob Camp

Fri, Apr 23, 2010 2:10 AM

Hi

Back in the late 70's HP was pushing their ADEV test setup to us. They hauled one in (yes indeed more than one box) for a demo. It took them most of the morning to get it in from the parking lot and set up / warmed up / running.

They ran us through a little presentation on how ADEV has two slopes (I wish I'd kept a copy...). We brought out some sample oscillators, and ran them through. Surprise more than two slopes. I then asked them "what do the other slopes mean?". No answer .... we'll get back to you .... mumble mumble .... They never did get back to me.

Needless to say they would have been a lot more likely to make the sale if they had one of your one page charts.

Bob

On Apr 22, 2010, at 9:55 PM, Tom Van Baak wrote:

Hi Kyle,

I looked into this a while ago and just ended up using the
random clock data generators within Stable32. But if you
end up with a code snippet for flicker noise let us know.

You'll find a wealth of ADEV information at Bill Riley's site.
http://www.stable32.com and http://www.wriley.com

You may also find this one-page chart I made very interesting.
It shows phase, frequency, and stability for all five noise types.

http://www.leapsecond.com/pages/allan/Exploring_Allan_Deviation.pdf

A total of 20 plots on a single page. It shows you every ADEV
and MDEV shape you've ever seen.

/tvb

time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Hi Back in the late 70's HP was pushing their ADEV test setup to us. They hauled one in (yes indeed more than one box) for a demo. It took them most of the morning to get it in from the parking lot and set up / warmed up / running. They ran us through a little presentation on how ADEV has two slopes (I *wish* I'd kept a copy...). We brought out some sample oscillators, and ran them through. *Surprise* more than two slopes. I then asked them "what do the other slopes mean?". No answer .... we'll get back to you .... mumble mumble .... They never did get back to me. Needless to say they would have been a lot more likely to make the sale if they had one of your one page charts. Bob On Apr 22, 2010, at 9:55 PM, Tom Van Baak wrote: > Hi Kyle, > > I looked into this a while ago and just ended up using the > random clock data generators within Stable32. But if you > end up with a code snippet for flicker noise let us know. > > You'll find a wealth of ADEV information at Bill Riley's site. > http://www.stable32.com and http://www.wriley.com > > You may also find this one-page chart I made very interesting. > It shows phase, frequency, and stability for all five noise types. > > <http://www.leapsecond.com/pages/allan/Exploring_Allan_Deviation.pdf> > > A total of 20 plots on a single page. It shows you every ADEV > and MDEV shape you've ever seen. > > /tvb > > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. >

MD

Magnus Danielson

Fri, Apr 23, 2010 6:16 AM

Hi Bob,

On 04/23/2010 04:10 AM, Bob Camp wrote:

Hi

Back in the late 70's HP was pushing their ADEV test setup to us. They hauled one in (yes indeed
more than one box) for a demo. It took them most of the morning to get it in from the parking lot
and set up / warmed up / running.

To much amusement I am sure.

They ran us through a little presentation on how ADEV has two slopes (I wish I'd kept a copy...).
We brought out some sample oscillators, and ran them through. Surprise more than two slopes.
I then asked them "what do the other slopes mean?". No answer .... we'll get back to you ....
mumble mumble .... They never did get back to me.

Depending on the oscillator you expect to see white, 1/f and 1/f^3 phase
modulation noise or white, 1/f^2 and 1/f^3 phase modulation noise.
Looking at tabulated Allan variance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_variance#Power-law_noise
(see also Tom's PDF)

We see that white and 1/f is weakly different such that they can be
expected easilly be mistaken for having the same slope. The 1/f^3 noise
has a flat Allan variance response. So, their oscillator during testing
may simply have been of one kind and the oscillator you brought out of
the other.

The Allan variance unability to separeate the white and 1/f noise
triggered the development of the modified Allan variance, but that only
happend after that incident.

Needless to say they would have been a lot more likely to make the sale if they had one of your
one page charts.

A copy of Leesons paper (a two-page thing) in 1966 would have helped a lot.

Cheers,
Magnus

Hi Bob, On 04/23/2010 04:10 AM, Bob Camp wrote: > Hi > > Back in the late 70's HP was pushing their ADEV test setup to us. They hauled one in (yes indeed > more than one box) for a demo. It took them most of the morning to get it in from the parking lot > and set up / warmed up / running. To much amusement I am sure. > They ran us through a little presentation on how ADEV has two slopes (I *wish* I'd kept a copy...). > We brought out some sample oscillators, and ran them through. *Surprise* more than two slopes. > I then asked them "what do the other slopes mean?". No answer .... we'll get back to you .... > mumble mumble .... They never did get back to me. Depending on the oscillator you expect to see white, 1/f and 1/f^3 phase modulation noise or white, 1/f^2 and 1/f^3 phase modulation noise. Looking at tabulated Allan variance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_variance#Power-law_noise (see also Tom's PDF) We see that white and 1/f is weakly different such that they can be expected easilly be mistaken for having the same slope. The 1/f^3 noise has a flat Allan variance response. So, their oscillator during testing may simply have been of one kind and the oscillator you brought out of the other. The Allan variance unability to separeate the white and 1/f noise triggered the development of the modified Allan variance, but that only happend after that incident. > Needless to say they would have been a lot more likely to make the sale if they had one of your > one page charts. A copy of Leesons paper (a two-page thing) in 1966 would have helped a lot. Cheers, Magnus

BC

Bob Camp

Fri, Apr 23, 2010 11:00 AM

Hi

The thing that amazed me was that there were at least two of us in the room who knew the answer, and neither of them worked for HP ....

Bob

On Apr 23, 2010, at 2:16 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:

Hi Bob,

On 04/23/2010 04:10 AM, Bob Camp wrote:

Hi

Back in the late 70's HP was pushing their ADEV test setup to us. They hauled one in (yes indeed
more than one box) for a demo. It took them most of the morning to get it in from the parking lot
and set up / warmed up / running.

To much amusement I am sure.

They ran us through a little presentation on how ADEV has two slopes (I wish I'd kept a copy...).
We brought out some sample oscillators, and ran them through. Surprise more than two slopes.
I then asked them "what do the other slopes mean?". No answer .... we'll get back to you ....
mumble mumble .... They never did get back to me.

Depending on the oscillator you expect to see white, 1/f and 1/f^3 phase modulation noise or white, 1/f^2 and 1/f^3 phase modulation noise. Looking at tabulated Allan variance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_variance#Power-law_noise
(see also Tom's PDF)

We see that white and 1/f is weakly different such that they can be expected easilly be mistaken for having the same slope. The 1/f^3 noise has a flat Allan variance response. So, their oscillator during testing may simply have been of one kind and the oscillator you brought out of the other.

The Allan variance unability to separeate the white and 1/f noise triggered the development of the modified Allan variance, but that only happend after that incident.

Needless to say they would have been a lot more likely to make the sale if they had one of your
one page charts.

A copy of Leesons paper (a two-page thing) in 1966 would have helped a lot.

Cheers,
Magnus

time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Hi The thing that amazed me was that there were at least two of us in the room who *knew* the answer, and neither of them worked for HP .... Bob On Apr 23, 2010, at 2:16 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote: > Hi Bob, > > On 04/23/2010 04:10 AM, Bob Camp wrote: >> Hi >> >> Back in the late 70's HP was pushing their ADEV test setup to us. They hauled one in (yes indeed >> more than one box) for a demo. It took them most of the morning to get it in from the parking lot >> and set up / warmed up / running. > > To much amusement I am sure. > >> They ran us through a little presentation on how ADEV has two slopes (I *wish* I'd kept a copy...). >> We brought out some sample oscillators, and ran them through. *Surprise* more than two slopes. >> I then asked them "what do the other slopes mean?". No answer .... we'll get back to you .... >> mumble mumble .... They never did get back to me. > > Depending on the oscillator you expect to see white, 1/f and 1/f^3 phase modulation noise or white, 1/f^2 and 1/f^3 phase modulation noise. Looking at tabulated Allan variance: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_variance#Power-law_noise > (see also Tom's PDF) > > We see that white and 1/f is weakly different such that they can be expected easilly be mistaken for having the same slope. The 1/f^3 noise has a flat Allan variance response. So, their oscillator during testing may simply have been of one kind and the oscillator you brought out of the other. > > The Allan variance unability to separeate the white and 1/f noise triggered the development of the modified Allan variance, but that only happend after that incident. > >> Needless to say they would have been a lot more likely to make the sale if they had one of your >> one page charts. > > A copy of Leesons paper (a two-page thing) in 1966 would have helped a lot. > > Cheers, > Magnus > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. >

KW

Kyle Wesson

Fri, Apr 23, 2010 8:31 PM

Wow. Thanks Magnus, Tom, and Bob for all of the information you
provided to me about oscillator simulations and particular noise
types. I'm going to read and digest it and see if I can get some
better results. I'm also going to purchase stable32 since it seems to
be the gold standard for precise timing work and then compare it to
the output of my scripts.

Thanks again!
Kyle

On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Magnus Danielson
magnus@rubidium.dyndns.org wrote:

Hi Bob,

On 04/23/2010 04:10 AM, Bob Camp wrote:

Hi

Back in the late 70's HP was pushing their ADEV test setup to us. They
hauled one in (yes indeed
more than one box) for a demo. It took them most of the morning to get it
in from the parking lot
and set up / warmed up / running.

To much amusement I am sure.

They ran us through a little presentation on how ADEV has two slopes (I
wish I'd kept a copy...).
We brought out some sample oscillators, and ran them through. Surprise
more than two slopes.
I then asked them "what do the other slopes mean?". No answer .... we'll
get back to you ....
mumble mumble .... They never did get back to me.

Depending on the oscillator you expect to see white, 1/f and 1/f^3 phase
modulation noise or white, 1/f^2 and 1/f^3 phase modulation noise. Looking
at tabulated Allan variance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_variance#Power-law_noise
(see also Tom's PDF)

We see that white and 1/f is weakly different such that they can be expected
easilly be mistaken for having the same slope. The 1/f^3 noise has a flat
Allan variance response. So, their oscillator during testing may simply have
been of one kind and the oscillator you brought out of the other.

The Allan variance unability to separeate the white and 1/f noise triggered
the development of the modified Allan variance, but that only happend after
that incident.

Needless to say they would have been a lot more likely to make the sale if
they had one of your
one page charts.

A copy of Leesons paper (a two-page thing) in 1966 would have helped a lot.

Cheers,
Magnus

time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Wow. Thanks Magnus, Tom, and Bob for all of the information you provided to me about oscillator simulations and particular noise types. I'm going to read and digest it and see if I can get some better results. I'm also going to purchase stable32 since it seems to be the gold standard for precise timing work and then compare it to the output of my scripts. Thanks again! Kyle On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Magnus Danielson <magnus@rubidium.dyndns.org> wrote: > Hi Bob, > > On 04/23/2010 04:10 AM, Bob Camp wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> Back in the late 70's HP was pushing their ADEV test setup to us. They >> hauled one in (yes indeed >> more than one box) for a demo. It took them most of the morning to get it >> in from the parking lot >> and set up / warmed up / running. > > To much amusement I am sure. > >> They ran us through a little presentation on how ADEV has two slopes (I >> *wish* I'd kept a copy...). >> We brought out some sample oscillators, and ran them through. *Surprise* >> more than two slopes. >> I then asked them "what do the other slopes mean?". No answer .... we'll >> get back to you .... >> mumble mumble .... They never did get back to me. > > Depending on the oscillator you expect to see white, 1/f and 1/f^3 phase > modulation noise or white, 1/f^2 and 1/f^3 phase modulation noise. Looking > at tabulated Allan variance: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_variance#Power-law_noise > (see also Tom's PDF) > > We see that white and 1/f is weakly different such that they can be expected > easilly be mistaken for having the same slope. The 1/f^3 noise has a flat > Allan variance response. So, their oscillator during testing may simply have > been of one kind and the oscillator you brought out of the other. > > The Allan variance unability to separeate the white and 1/f noise triggered > the development of the modified Allan variance, but that only happend after > that incident. > >> Needless to say they would have been a lot more likely to make the sale if >> they had one of your >> one page charts. > > A copy of Leesons paper (a two-page thing) in 1966 would have helped a lot. > > Cheers, > Magnus > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. >

BC

Bob Camp

Fri, Apr 23, 2010 9:06 PM

Hi

Stable-32 is a great program.

Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: time-nuts-bounces@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-bounces@febo.com] On
Behalf Of Kyle Wesson
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 4:32 PM
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Simulating Oscillator Noise:
DifficultiesSimulatingFlicker FM Noise

Wow. Thanks Magnus, Tom, and Bob for all of the information you
provided to me about oscillator simulations and particular noise
types. I'm going to read and digest it and see if I can get some
better results. I'm also going to purchase stable32 since it seems to
be the gold standard for precise timing work and then compare it to
the output of my scripts.

Thanks again!
Kyle

On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Magnus Danielson
magnus@rubidium.dyndns.org wrote:

Hi Bob,

On 04/23/2010 04:10 AM, Bob Camp wrote:

Hi

Back in the late 70's HP was pushing their ADEV test setup to us. They
hauled one in (yes indeed
more than one box) for a demo. It took them most of the morning to get it
in from the parking lot
and set up / warmed up / running.

To much amusement I am sure.

They ran us through a little presentation on how ADEV has two slopes (I
wish I'd kept a copy...).
We brought out some sample oscillators, and ran them through. Surprise
more than two slopes.
I then asked them "what do the other slopes mean?". No answer .... we'll
get back to you ....
mumble mumble .... They never did get back to me.

Depending on the oscillator you expect to see white, 1/f and 1/f^3 phase
modulation noise or white, 1/f^2 and 1/f^3 phase modulation noise. Looking
at tabulated Allan variance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_variance#Power-law_noise
(see also Tom's PDF)

We see that white and 1/f is weakly different such that they can be

expected

easilly be mistaken for having the same slope. The 1/f^3 noise has a flat
Allan variance response. So, their oscillator during testing may simply

have

been of one kind and the oscillator you brought out of the other.

The Allan variance unability to separeate the white and 1/f noise

triggered

the development of the modified Allan variance, but that only happend

after

that incident.

Needless to say they would have been a lot more likely to make the sale

if

they had one of your
one page charts.

A copy of Leesons paper (a two-page thing) in 1966 would have helped a

lot.

Cheers,
Magnus

time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Hi Stable-32 is a great program. Bob -----Original Message----- From: time-nuts-bounces@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-bounces@febo.com] On Behalf Of Kyle Wesson Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 4:32 PM To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Simulating Oscillator Noise: DifficultiesSimulatingFlicker FM Noise Wow. Thanks Magnus, Tom, and Bob for all of the information you provided to me about oscillator simulations and particular noise types. I'm going to read and digest it and see if I can get some better results. I'm also going to purchase stable32 since it seems to be the gold standard for precise timing work and then compare it to the output of my scripts. Thanks again! Kyle On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Magnus Danielson <magnus@rubidium.dyndns.org> wrote: > Hi Bob, > > On 04/23/2010 04:10 AM, Bob Camp wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> Back in the late 70's HP was pushing their ADEV test setup to us. They >> hauled one in (yes indeed >> more than one box) for a demo. It took them most of the morning to get it >> in from the parking lot >> and set up / warmed up / running. > > To much amusement I am sure. > >> They ran us through a little presentation on how ADEV has two slopes (I >> *wish* I'd kept a copy...). >> We brought out some sample oscillators, and ran them through. *Surprise* >> more than two slopes. >> I then asked them "what do the other slopes mean?". No answer .... we'll >> get back to you .... >> mumble mumble .... They never did get back to me. > > Depending on the oscillator you expect to see white, 1/f and 1/f^3 phase > modulation noise or white, 1/f^2 and 1/f^3 phase modulation noise. Looking > at tabulated Allan variance: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_variance#Power-law_noise > (see also Tom's PDF) > > We see that white and 1/f is weakly different such that they can be expected > easilly be mistaken for having the same slope. The 1/f^3 noise has a flat > Allan variance response. So, their oscillator during testing may simply have > been of one kind and the oscillator you brought out of the other. > > The Allan variance unability to separeate the white and 1/f noise triggered > the development of the modified Allan variance, but that only happend after > that incident. > >> Needless to say they would have been a lot more likely to make the sale if >> they had one of your >> one page charts. > > A copy of Leesons paper (a two-page thing) in 1966 would have helped a lot. > > Cheers, > Magnus > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@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@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.

MD

Magnus Danielson

Fri, Apr 23, 2010 9:22 PM

On 04/23/2010 11:06 PM, Bob Camp wrote:

Hi

Stable-32 is a great program.

To my knowledge it only runs on Windows...

Cheers,
Magnus

On 04/23/2010 11:06 PM, Bob Camp wrote: > Hi > > Stable-32 is a great program. To my knowledge it only runs on Windows... Cheers, Magnus

BC

Bob Camp

Fri, Apr 23, 2010 9:53 PM

Hi

There was somebody going to write a Linux version but he's not very reliable. Who was that ... I keep forgetting ....

Bob

On Apr 23, 2010, at 5:22 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:

On 04/23/2010 11:06 PM, Bob Camp wrote:

Hi

Stable-32 is a great program.

To my knowledge it only runs on Windows...

Cheers,
Magnus

time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Hi There was somebody going to write a Linux version but he's not very reliable. Who was that ... I keep forgetting .... Bob On Apr 23, 2010, at 5:22 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote: > On 04/23/2010 11:06 PM, Bob Camp wrote: >> Hi >> >> Stable-32 is a great program. > > To my knowledge it only runs on Windows... > > Cheers, > Magnus > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. >

BC

Bob Camp

Sat, Apr 24, 2010 12:36 PM

Hi

.... I think I was the one going to do that ... back in the mid 1980's ... Based on progress to date, I don't think it will be here any time soon ...

Bob

On Apr 23, 2010, at 5:53 PM, Bob Camp wrote:

Hi

There was somebody going to write a Linux version but he's not very reliable. Who was that ... I keep forgetting ....

Bob

On Apr 23, 2010, at 5:22 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:

On 04/23/2010 11:06 PM, Bob Camp wrote:

Hi

Stable-32 is a great program.

To my knowledge it only runs on Windows...

Cheers,
Magnus

time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Hi .... I think I was the one going to do that ... back in the mid 1980's ... Based on progress to date, I don't think it will be here any time soon ... Bob On Apr 23, 2010, at 5:53 PM, Bob Camp wrote: > Hi > > There was somebody going to write a Linux version but he's not very reliable. Who was that ... I keep forgetting .... > > Bob > > > On Apr 23, 2010, at 5:22 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote: > >> On 04/23/2010 11:06 PM, Bob Camp wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> Stable-32 is a great program. >> >> To my knowledge it only runs on Windows... >> >> Cheers, >> Magnus >> >> _______________________________________________ >> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@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@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. >

MD

Magnus Danielson

Sat, Apr 24, 2010 1:22 PM

On 04/24/2010 02:36 PM, Bob Camp wrote:

Hi

.... I think I was the one going to do that ... back in the mid 1980's ... Based on progress to date, I don't think it will be here any time soon ...

Well, I have been spending some time to implement several of the
algorithms. There are many pieces to the puzzle thought. The stuff I
have written lately is more to prove algorithmic correctness and lacks
input tau0, provided sequences of data (assumes the fixed location and
all that) and also a lot of supporting transformations and processing.
I fill in the blanks every now and then.

For my own sake, I don't invest in programs that forces me to run an
operating system I don't want to run and depend on. If I have to write
the code myself, then that happens to support my wish to learn the field
even deeper. This set of priorities may or may not coincide with other
peoples choices.

NIST SP 1065 is a good starter for anyone wishing to do their own coding.

Cheers,
Magnus

On 04/24/2010 02:36 PM, Bob Camp wrote: > Hi > > .... I think I was the one going to do that ... back in the mid 1980's ... Based on progress to date, I don't think it will be here any time soon ... Well, I have been spending some time to implement several of the algorithms. There are many pieces to the puzzle thought. The stuff I have written lately is more to prove algorithmic correctness and lacks input tau0, provided sequences of data (assumes the fixed location and all that) and also a lot of supporting transformations and processing. I fill in the blanks every now and then. For my own sake, I don't invest in programs that forces me to run an operating system I don't want to run and depend on. If I have to write the code myself, then that happens to support my wish to learn the field even deeper. This set of priorities may or may not coincide with other peoples choices. NIST SP 1065 is a good starter for anyone wishing to do their own coding. Cheers, Magnus

BC

Bob Camp

Sat, Apr 24, 2010 1:46 PM

Hi

I seem to vaguely recall there being a fairly specific commitment being discussed in my case. More or less porting the same code base over to something like Red Hat (this was the 1980's). One of many projects that never really got off the ground.

Bob

On Apr 24, 2010, at 9:22 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:

On 04/24/2010 02:36 PM, Bob Camp wrote:

Hi

.... I think I was the one going to do that ... back in the mid 1980's ... Based on progress to date, I don't think it will be here any time soon ...

Well, I have been spending some time to implement several of the algorithms. There are many pieces to the puzzle thought. The stuff I have written lately is more to prove algorithmic correctness and lacks input tau0, provided sequences of data (assumes the fixed location and all that) and also a lot of supporting transformations and processing.
I fill in the blanks every now and then.

For my own sake, I don't invest in programs that forces me to run an operating system I don't want to run and depend on. If I have to write the code myself, then that happens to support my wish to learn the field even deeper. This set of priorities may or may not coincide with other peoples choices.

NIST SP 1065 is a good starter for anyone wishing to do their own coding.

Cheers,
Magnus

time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Hi I seem to vaguely recall there being a fairly specific commitment being discussed in my case. More or less porting the same code base over to something like Red Hat (this was the 1980's). One of many projects that never really got off the ground. Bob On Apr 24, 2010, at 9:22 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote: > On 04/24/2010 02:36 PM, Bob Camp wrote: >> Hi >> >> .... I think I was the one going to do that ... back in the mid 1980's ... Based on progress to date, I don't think it will be here any time soon ... > > Well, I have been spending some time to implement several of the algorithms. There are many pieces to the puzzle thought. The stuff I have written lately is more to prove algorithmic correctness and lacks input tau0, provided sequences of data (assumes the fixed location and all that) and also a lot of supporting transformations and processing. > I fill in the blanks every now and then. > > For my own sake, I don't invest in programs that forces me to run an operating system I don't want to run and depend on. If I have to write the code myself, then that happens to support my wish to learn the field even deeper. This set of priorities may or may not coincide with other peoples choices. > > NIST SP 1065 is a good starter for anyone wishing to do their own coding. > > Cheers, > Magnus > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. >

MD

Magnus Danielson

Sat, Apr 24, 2010 1:53 PM

On 04/24/2010 03:46 PM, Bob Camp wrote:

Hi

I seem to vaguely recall there being a fairly specific commitment being discussed in my case. More or less porting the same code base over to something like Red Hat (this was the 1980's). One of many projects that never really got off the ground.

Porting to RedHat in the 80thies would have required somewhat of a
time-warp machine as Linux itself happen in the 90thies.

By todays standard the Debian distribution and its relatives (Ubuntu)
dominates, so going to RedHat now is out of fashion. If you can get it
to work on Debian, then it should work more or less everywhere else.

Cheers,
Magnus

On 04/24/2010 03:46 PM, Bob Camp wrote: > Hi > > I seem to vaguely recall there being a fairly specific commitment being discussed in my case. More or less porting the same code base over to something like Red Hat (this was the 1980's). One of many projects that never really got off the ground. Porting to RedHat in the 80thies would have required somewhat of a time-warp machine as Linux itself happen in the 90thies. By todays standard the Debian distribution and its relatives (Ubuntu) dominates, so going to RedHat now is out of fashion. If you can get it to work on Debian, then it should work more or less everywhere else. Cheers, Magnus

BC

Bob Camp

Sat, Apr 24, 2010 1:57 PM

Hi

Hmmm, good point.

The port must have been to something other than Linux.

Bob

On Apr 24, 2010, at 9:53 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:

On 04/24/2010 03:46 PM, Bob Camp wrote:

Hi

I seem to vaguely recall there being a fairly specific commitment being discussed in my case. More or less porting the same code base over to something like Red Hat (this was the 1980's). One of many projects that never really got off the ground.

Porting to RedHat in the 80thies would have required somewhat of a time-warp machine as Linux itself happen in the 90thies.

By todays standard the Debian distribution and its relatives (Ubuntu) dominates, so going to RedHat now is out of fashion. If you can get it to work on Debian, then it should work more or less everywhere else.

Cheers,
Magnus

time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Hi Hmmm, good point. The port must have been to something other than Linux. Bob On Apr 24, 2010, at 9:53 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote: > On 04/24/2010 03:46 PM, Bob Camp wrote: >> Hi >> >> I seem to vaguely recall there being a fairly specific commitment being discussed in my case. More or less porting the same code base over to something like Red Hat (this was the 1980's). One of many projects that never really got off the ground. > > Porting to RedHat in the 80thies would have required somewhat of a time-warp machine as Linux itself happen in the 90thies. > > By todays standard the Debian distribution and its relatives (Ubuntu) dominates, so going to RedHat now is out of fashion. If you can get it to work on Debian, then it should work more or less everywhere else. > > Cheers, > Magnus > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. >

MD

Magnus Danielson

Sat, Apr 24, 2010 2:39 PM

On 04/24/2010 03:57 PM, Bob Camp wrote:

Hi

Hmmm, good point.

The port must have been to something other than Linux.

One of the many flavours of BSD I guess, or one of the many other
flavours of UNIX.

I have become old enough that most of the UNIX flavours I have worked on
is now deceased or about to. This is mainly the history of commercial
UNIXes.

Cheers,
Magnus

On 04/24/2010 03:57 PM, Bob Camp wrote: > Hi > > Hmmm, good point. > > The port must have been to something other than Linux. One of the many flavours of BSD I guess, or one of the many other flavours of UNIX. I have become old enough that most of the UNIX flavours I have worked on is now deceased or about to. This is mainly the history of commercial UNIXes. Cheers, Magnus

SR

Steve Rooke

Sun, Apr 25, 2010 8:55 AM

On 25 April 2010 02:39, Magnus Danielson magnus@rubidium.dyndns.org wrote:

On 04/24/2010 03:57 PM, Bob Camp wrote:

Hi

Hmmm, good point.

The port must have been to something other than Linux.

One of the many flavours of BSD I guess, or one of the many other flavours
of UNIX.

I have become old enough that most of the UNIX flavours I have worked on is
now deceased or about to. This is mainly the history of commercial UNIXes.

Unix will never die! They said it was going to die in the 80's but
it's still going strong in some form or another, or imitated,
embedded, pervasive, a survivor. What's more the ones you think are
deceased are still being used out there by small and large groups of
people who just won't let it die, they'll have to prise it out of
their cold dead hands. Why, well people swear by it, all the other OS'
people just swear at them (well at least one OS I can think of :)

Cheers,
Steve

Cheers,
Magnus

time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@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
A man with one clock knows what time it is;
A man with two clocks is never quite sure.

On 25 April 2010 02:39, Magnus Danielson <magnus@rubidium.dyndns.org> wrote: > On 04/24/2010 03:57 PM, Bob Camp wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> Hmmm, good point. >> >> The port must have been to something other than Linux. > > One of the many flavours of BSD I guess, or one of the many other flavours > of UNIX. > > I have become old enough that most of the UNIX flavours I have worked on is > now deceased or about to. This is mainly the history of commercial UNIXes. Unix will never die! They said it was going to die in the 80's but it's still going strong in some form or another, or imitated, embedded, pervasive, a survivor. What's more the ones you think are deceased are still being used out there by small and large groups of people who just won't let it die, they'll have to prise it out of their cold dead hands. Why, well people swear by it, all the other OS' people just swear at them (well at least one OS I can think of :) Cheers, Steve > Cheers, > Magnus > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@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 A man with one clock knows what time it is; A man with two clocks is never quite sure.

BC

Bob Camp

Sun, Apr 25, 2010 11:40 AM

Hi

I really wish I'd kept labels off of the 9 track tapes that Western Electric shipped us in 1974 after I spent 6 months doing paperwork to get our original copy. Unix has been free for a long time. It's not always been "easily available". If I still had a PDP-11 in the living room the tapes them selves might be of some use. The only minor point being that I never had a 9 track tape drive here at home. I always found it strange that they distributed it on 9 track rather than DEC Tape.

Bob

On Apr 25, 2010, at 4:55 AM, Steve Rooke wrote:

On 25 April 2010 02:39, Magnus Danielson magnus@rubidium.dyndns.org wrote:

On 04/24/2010 03:57 PM, Bob Camp wrote:

Hi

Hmmm, good point.

The port must have been to something other than Linux.

One of the many flavours of BSD I guess, or one of the many other flavours
of UNIX.

I have become old enough that most of the UNIX flavours I have worked on is
now deceased or about to. This is mainly the history of commercial UNIXes.

Unix will never die! They said it was going to die in the 80's but
it's still going strong in some form or another, or imitated,
embedded, pervasive, a survivor. What's more the ones you think are
deceased are still being used out there by small and large groups of
people who just won't let it die, they'll have to prise it out of
their cold dead hands. Why, well people swear by it, all the other OS'
people just swear at them (well at least one OS I can think of :)

Cheers,
Steve

Cheers,
Magnus

time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@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
A man with one clock knows what time it is;
A man with two clocks is never quite sure.

time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Hi I *really* wish I'd kept labels off of the 9 track tapes that Western Electric shipped us in 1974 after I spent 6 months doing paperwork to get our original copy. Unix has been free for a long time. It's not always been "easily available". If I still had a PDP-11 in the living room the tapes them selves might be of some use. The only minor point being that I never had a 9 track tape drive here at home. I always found it strange that they distributed it on 9 track rather than DEC Tape. Bob On Apr 25, 2010, at 4:55 AM, Steve Rooke wrote: > On 25 April 2010 02:39, Magnus Danielson <magnus@rubidium.dyndns.org> wrote: >> On 04/24/2010 03:57 PM, Bob Camp wrote: >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> Hmmm, good point. >>> >>> The port must have been to something other than Linux. >> >> One of the many flavours of BSD I guess, or one of the many other flavours >> of UNIX. >> >> I have become old enough that most of the UNIX flavours I have worked on is >> now deceased or about to. This is mainly the history of commercial UNIXes. > > Unix will never die! They said it was going to die in the 80's but > it's still going strong in some form or another, or imitated, > embedded, pervasive, a survivor. What's more the ones you think are > deceased are still being used out there by small and large groups of > people who just won't let it die, they'll have to prise it out of > their cold dead hands. Why, well people swear by it, all the other OS' > people just swear at them (well at least one OS I can think of :) > > Cheers, > Steve > >> Cheers, >> Magnus >> >> _______________________________________________ >> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@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 > A man with one clock knows what time it is; > A man with two clocks is never quite sure. > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. >

PK

Poul-Henning Kamp

Sun, Apr 25, 2010 11:47 AM

In message 116CF051-7BE6-4F8F-91CC-7CEE18ECF3F2@rtty.us, Bob Camp writes:

I really wish I'd kept labels off of the 9 track tapes that
Western Electric shipped us in 1974 after I spent 6 months doing
paperwork to get our original copy. Unix has been free for a long
time. It's not always been "easily available".

These day it is:

ftp://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixArchive/

--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@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.

In message <116CF051-7BE6-4F8F-91CC-7CEE18ECF3F2@rtty.us>, Bob Camp writes: >I *really* wish I'd kept labels off of the 9 track tapes that >Western Electric shipped us in 1974 after I spent 6 months doing >paperwork to get our original copy. Unix has been free for a long >time. It's not always been "easily available". These day it is: ftp://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixArchive/ -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@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.

BC

Bob Camp

Sun, Apr 25, 2010 11:59 AM

Hi

Back then our "net" (ARPA net) connection didn't get us to very many places. One of them, ummm, errrrr, did indeed have a copy of what we were looking for. Not quite point and click to get it, but close.

I guess I should have said "it hasn't always been easily available legally."

Bob

On Apr 25, 2010, at 7:47 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

In message 116CF051-7BE6-4F8F-91CC-7CEE18ECF3F2@rtty.us, Bob Camp writes:

I really wish I'd kept labels off of the 9 track tapes that
Western Electric shipped us in 1974 after I spent 6 months doing
paperwork to get our original copy. Unix has been free for a long
time. It's not always been "easily available".

These day it is:

ftp://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixArchive/

--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@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@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Hi Back then our "net" (ARPA net) connection didn't get us to very many places. One of them, ummm, errrrr, did indeed have a copy of what we were looking for. Not quite point and click to get it, but close. I guess I should have said "it hasn't always been easily available *legally*." Bob On Apr 25, 2010, at 7:47 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <116CF051-7BE6-4F8F-91CC-7CEE18ECF3F2@rtty.us>, Bob Camp writes: > >> I *really* wish I'd kept labels off of the 9 track tapes that >> Western Electric shipped us in 1974 after I spent 6 months doing >> paperwork to get our original copy. Unix has been free for a long >> time. It's not always been "easily available". > > These day it is: > > ftp://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixArchive/ > > -- > Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 > phk@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@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. >

MD

Magnus Danielson

Sun, Apr 25, 2010 12:01 PM

On 04/25/2010 10:55 AM, Steve Rooke wrote:

On 25 April 2010 02:39, Magnus Danielsonmagnus@rubidium.dyndns.org wrote:

On 04/24/2010 03:57 PM, Bob Camp wrote:

Hi

Hmmm, good point.

The port must have been to something other than Linux.

One of the many flavours of BSD I guess, or one of the many other flavours
of UNIX.

I have become old enough that most of the UNIX flavours I have worked on is
now deceased or about to. This is mainly the history of commercial UNIXes.

Unix will never die! They said it was going to die in the 80's but
it's still going strong in some form or another, or imitated,
embedded, pervasive, a survivor. What's more the ones you think are
deceased are still being used out there by small and large groups of
people who just won't let it die, they'll have to prise it out of
their cold dead hands. Why, well people swear by it, all the other OS'
people just swear at them (well at least one OS I can think of :)

You didn't get me right... UNIX (and offspring Linux) is not dying, but
Xenix, SunOS, Ultrix, OSF/1, HP-UX, IRIX etc. is dying or dead. Wonder
what is happening to AIX (which I haven't used) and Solaris. These are
all various vendors proprietary variants of UNIX. The field have shifted
in that sense. A greater part of the OS is now being brought in from the
open and only necessary stuff is added for the task at hand.

Proprietary OSes in the old sense is less and less meaningful.

Cheers,
Magnus

On 04/25/2010 10:55 AM, Steve Rooke wrote: > On 25 April 2010 02:39, Magnus Danielson<magnus@rubidium.dyndns.org> wrote: >> On 04/24/2010 03:57 PM, Bob Camp wrote: >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> Hmmm, good point. >>> >>> The port must have been to something other than Linux. >> >> One of the many flavours of BSD I guess, or one of the many other flavours >> of UNIX. >> >> I have become old enough that most of the UNIX flavours I have worked on is >> now deceased or about to. This is mainly the history of commercial UNIXes. > > Unix will never die! They said it was going to die in the 80's but > it's still going strong in some form or another, or imitated, > embedded, pervasive, a survivor. What's more the ones you think are > deceased are still being used out there by small and large groups of > people who just won't let it die, they'll have to prise it out of > their cold dead hands. Why, well people swear by it, all the other OS' > people just swear at them (well at least one OS I can think of :) You didn't get me right... UNIX (and offspring Linux) is not dying, but Xenix, SunOS, Ultrix, OSF/1, HP-UX, IRIX etc. is dying or dead. Wonder what is happening to AIX (which I haven't used) and Solaris. These are all various vendors proprietary variants of UNIX. The field have shifted in that sense. A greater part of the OS is now being brought in from the open and only necessary stuff is added for the task at hand. Proprietary OSes in the old sense is less and less meaningful. Cheers, Magnus

BC

Bob Camp

Sun, Apr 25, 2010 12:04 PM

Hi

Solaris at least has "seen the light" and is becoming a lot more open than it once was.

Bob

On Apr 25, 2010, at 8:01 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:

On 04/25/2010 10:55 AM, Steve Rooke wrote:

On 25 April 2010 02:39, Magnus Danielsonmagnus@rubidium.dyndns.org wrote:

On 04/24/2010 03:57 PM, Bob Camp wrote:

Hi

Hmmm, good point.

The port must have been to something other than Linux.

One of the many flavours of BSD I guess, or one of the many other flavours
of UNIX.

I have become old enough that most of the UNIX flavours I have worked on is
now deceased or about to. This is mainly the history of commercial UNIXes.

Unix will never die! They said it was going to die in the 80's but
it's still going strong in some form or another, or imitated,
embedded, pervasive, a survivor. What's more the ones you think are
deceased are still being used out there by small and large groups of
people who just won't let it die, they'll have to prise it out of
their cold dead hands. Why, well people swear by it, all the other OS'
people just swear at them (well at least one OS I can think of :)

You didn't get me right... UNIX (and offspring Linux) is not dying, but Xenix, SunOS, Ultrix, OSF/1, HP-UX, IRIX etc. is dying or dead. Wonder what is happening to AIX (which I haven't used) and Solaris. These are all various vendors proprietary variants of UNIX. The field have shifted in that sense. A greater part of the OS is now being brought in from the open and only necessary stuff is added for the task at hand.

Proprietary OSes in the old sense is less and less meaningful.

Cheers,
Magnus

time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Hi Solaris at least has "seen the light" and is becoming a lot more open than it once was. Bob On Apr 25, 2010, at 8:01 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote: > On 04/25/2010 10:55 AM, Steve Rooke wrote: >> On 25 April 2010 02:39, Magnus Danielson<magnus@rubidium.dyndns.org> wrote: >>> On 04/24/2010 03:57 PM, Bob Camp wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> Hmmm, good point. >>>> >>>> The port must have been to something other than Linux. >>> >>> One of the many flavours of BSD I guess, or one of the many other flavours >>> of UNIX. >>> >>> I have become old enough that most of the UNIX flavours I have worked on is >>> now deceased or about to. This is mainly the history of commercial UNIXes. >> >> Unix will never die! They said it was going to die in the 80's but >> it's still going strong in some form or another, or imitated, >> embedded, pervasive, a survivor. What's more the ones you think are >> deceased are still being used out there by small and large groups of >> people who just won't let it die, they'll have to prise it out of >> their cold dead hands. Why, well people swear by it, all the other OS' >> people just swear at them (well at least one OS I can think of :) > > You didn't get me right... UNIX (and offspring Linux) is not dying, but Xenix, SunOS, Ultrix, OSF/1, HP-UX, IRIX etc. is dying or dead. Wonder what is happening to AIX (which I haven't used) and Solaris. These are all various vendors proprietary variants of UNIX. The field have shifted in that sense. A greater part of the OS is now being brought in from the open and only necessary stuff is added for the task at hand. > > Proprietary OSes in the old sense is less and less meaningful. > > Cheers, > Magnus > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. >

SR

Steve Rooke

Sun, Apr 25, 2010 12:38 PM

Hi Magnus,

On 26 April 2010 00:01, Magnus Danielson magnus@rubidium.dyndns.org wrote:

I have become old enough that most of the UNIX flavours I have worked on
is
now deceased or about to. This is mainly the history of commercial
UNIXes.

You didn't get me right... UNIX (and offspring Linux) is not dying, but
Xenix, SunOS, Ultrix, OSF/1, HP-UX, IRIX etc. is dying or dead. Wonder what
is happening to AIX (which I haven't used) and Solaris. These are all
various vendors proprietary variants of UNIX. The field have shifted in that
sense. A greater part of the OS is now being brought in from the open and
only necessary stuff is added for the task at hand.

Excuse me for reading it the way I did as you can get two meanings
from what you said. Whatever is said about the rag, tag and bobtail
variants of 'nix, there are still folks keeping them alive because
they have applications/hardware/fan-cub interests. Strange in a way, I
can't imagine anyone wanting to keep WinME, or even Vista (among
others), alive today.

Agreed, why reinvent the wheel. Once something has gone through a long
history of incremental development and debugging it seems like a
sensible idea to use that as a foundation and build on it.

Proprietary OSes in the old sense is less and less meaningful.

It's just an OS after all, nothing more than that, but it does form
the foundation of any system and it needs to be rock solid. Sadly some
software houses seem to think that a stable sold foundation is not
sexy so they stick some chipboard down on the floor, knock up some
plasterboard walls (who needs brick on the outside) add a hardboard
roof and then add lots of dazzling Christmas lights, gargoyles,
flashing neon lights, spinning mirror balls, and all the
carlos-fandango flashy accessories under the sun. And in 6(2) years
time they go and build another house but this time they change about
80% of the design completely because no-one can ever remember how they
made the last one and all the young people who built it are burnt out
and have left for the hills leaving no documentation (who needs
documentation anyway). And the strange thing is that people wonder how
you can make an open source OS for free, I mean it costs big money to
make anything good right :)

Sorry for the waste of bandwidth guys.

Cheers,
Steve

Cheers,
Magnus

time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@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
A man with one clock knows what time it is;
A man with two clocks is never quite sure.

Hi Magnus, On 26 April 2010 00:01, Magnus Danielson <magnus@rubidium.dyndns.org> wrote: >>> I have become old enough that most of the UNIX flavours I have worked on >>> is >>> now deceased or about to. This is mainly the history of commercial >>> UNIXes. > You didn't get me right... UNIX (and offspring Linux) is not dying, but > Xenix, SunOS, Ultrix, OSF/1, HP-UX, IRIX etc. is dying or dead. Wonder what > is happening to AIX (which I haven't used) and Solaris. These are all > various vendors proprietary variants of UNIX. The field have shifted in that > sense. A greater part of the OS is now being brought in from the open and > only necessary stuff is added for the task at hand. Excuse me for reading it the way I did as you can get two meanings from what you said. Whatever is said about the rag, tag and bobtail variants of 'nix, there are still folks keeping them alive because they have applications/hardware/fan-cub interests. Strange in a way, I can't imagine anyone wanting to keep WinME, or even Vista (among others), alive today. Agreed, why reinvent the wheel. Once something has gone through a long history of incremental development and debugging it seems like a sensible idea to use that as a foundation and build on it. > Proprietary OSes in the old sense is less and less meaningful. It's just an OS after all, nothing more than that, but it does form the foundation of any system and it needs to be rock solid. Sadly some software houses seem to think that a stable sold foundation is not sexy so they stick some chipboard down on the floor, knock up some plasterboard walls (who needs brick on the outside) add a hardboard roof and then add lots of dazzling Christmas lights, gargoyles, flashing neon lights, spinning mirror balls, and all the carlos-fandango flashy accessories under the sun. And in 6(2) years time they go and build another house but this time they change about 80% of the design completely because no-one can ever remember how they made the last one and all the young people who built it are burnt out and have left for the hills leaving no documentation (who needs documentation anyway). And the strange thing is that people wonder how you can make an open source OS for free, I mean it costs big money to make anything good right :) Sorry for the waste of bandwidth guys. Cheers, Steve > > Cheers, > Magnus > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@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 A man with one clock knows what time it is; A man with two clocks is never quite sure.

time-nuts@lists.febo.com

Simulating Oscillator Noise: Difficulties Simulating Flicker FM Noise