Re: [time-nuts] time-nuts Digest, Vol 18, Issue 1
Exactly. That was an unenlightened attitude for the old-timers to have back
then, and it's no smarter now.
-- john, KE5FX
"John Miles" jmiles@pop.net wrote:
To the chip designer, a "component" is probably a subcircuit model that
exists only in software. To me, a "component" is the resulting
chip, with
pins you can solder stuff to. To the kid, the "component" is
the monolithic
WiFi card. There is little to be gained by assigning relative levels of
merit to different abstraction levels, or assuming that society
is doomed
because people rarely work their way down the abstraction
hierarchy without
a compelling need.
When I was a kid, all the oldest hams looked down on us young'uns who
built transmitters etc. To them, making a radio was to make a spark gap
transmitter involving wood and metal lathes, varnish, copper wire
and installing your own cloth insulation. We didn't know how lucky
we were, buying resistors and capacitors off the shelf instead of making
them from scratch :-).
Tim.
The URL below is the source code in Basic for the program that I wrote over
20 years ago. Since I think you both intend to change it to another language
the listing should suffice. I have so many great programs in Basic, some
that go back over 30 years, but, not too many machines support DOS easily
any more. I still use these programs however. I guess it is easier than me
to learn a new programming language. 73 - Mike
http://www.eozinc.com/DOS/Phase1.pdf
Mike B. Feher
89 Arnold Blvd.
Howell, NJ, 07731
732-886-5960
-----Original Message-----
From: time-nuts-bounces@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-bounces@febo.com] On
Behalf Of John Miles
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 2:30 PM
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Help w/integration problem
Hi, Mike --
That would indeed be interesting to see... but your file looks like a
compiled (or at least tokenized) binary. Is there an interpreter for
Win2K/XP that will let me list your program, or some other way to get a
plaintext listing?
BTW, I don't know if you saw the note I posted to the hp_agilent list or
not, but I've got PN.EXE, SSM.EXE, and 7470.EXE running on the 8568A now.
As soon as I get this noise-integration feature nailed down, I'll build a
new release that should work on your 8566A. Will be in touch offline.
-- john, KE5FX
-----Original Message-----
From: time-nuts-bounces@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-bounces@febo.com]On
Behalf Of Mike Feher
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 7:12 AM
To: 'Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement'
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Help w/integration problem
I figured that is what you would do. As I recall in this program I doubled
the answer to obtain the total double sided noise power. You will see that
in the program, towards the end, and can eliminate the doubling
if you only
want the single sided total power over the selected integration
limits. Here
is the URL:
http://www@eozinc.com/DOS/PHASE1.BAS
time-nuts mailing list
time-nuts@febo.com
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
From: "Mike Feher" mfeher@eozinc.com
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Help w/integration problem
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 20:26:54 -0500
Message-ID: 010c01c61004$c8b979f0$0201a8c0@n4fs
Mike,
The URL below is the source code in Basic for the program that I wrote over
20 years ago. Since I think you both intend to change it to another language
the listing should suffice. I have so many great programs in Basic, some
that go back over 30 years, but, not too many machines support DOS easily
any more. I still use these programs however. I guess it is easier than me
to learn a new programming language. 73 - Mike
I'm quite sure that it is possible to find more or less suitable BASIC
implementations lying around. For UNIX style OSes there is for instance the
Bywater BASIC (bwBASIC) https://sourceforge.net/projects/bwbasic/ and
Yeat Another BASIC (yaBASIC) http://www.yabasic.de/.
There is a fair amount of HPBASIC programs around which would be good if one
could run. The main problem should be porting the GPIB interface.
Anyway, for "normal" BASIC programs, there is certainly options around.
BTW, I have a Euroboard (160x100mm) computer with a i8052AHBASIC V1.1 chip.
Just toss power on it, a serial port to the propper pins and I have a little
BASIC engine. This little board also has the EPROM socket, 8255s and other
goodies, so it is a real little powerhouse for its time. ;O)
The manuals for the BASIC (very detailed) is online. ;O)
Cheers,
Magnus
Magnus -
So far I do not have any problems running any of my basic programs for
myself. The problem comes when I try to share like this time. All the best
in 2006 - Mike
Mike B. Feher
89 Arnold Blvd.
Howell, NJ, 07731
732-886-5960
-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Danielson [mailto:cfmd@bredband.net]
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 8:42 PM
To: time-nuts@febo.com; mfeher@eozinc.com
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Help w/integration problem
From: "Mike Feher" mfeher@eozinc.com
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Help w/integration problem
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 20:26:54 -0500
Message-ID: 010c01c61004$c8b979f0$0201a8c0@n4fs
Mike,
The URL below is the source code in Basic for the program that I wrote
over
20 years ago. Since I think you both intend to change it to another
language
the listing should suffice. I have so many great programs in Basic, some
that go back over 30 years, but, not too many machines support DOS easily
any more. I still use these programs however. I guess it is easier than me
to learn a new programming language. 73 - Mike
I'm quite sure that it is possible to find more or less suitable BASIC
implementations lying around. For UNIX style OSes there is for instance the
Bywater BASIC (bwBASIC) https://sourceforge.net/projects/bwbasic/ and
Yeat Another BASIC (yaBASIC) http://www.yabasic.de/.
There is a fair amount of HPBASIC programs around which would be good if one
could run. The main problem should be porting the GPIB interface.
Anyway, for "normal" BASIC programs, there is certainly options around.
BTW, I have a Euroboard (160x100mm) computer with a i8052AHBASIC V1.1 chip.
Just toss power on it, a serial port to the propper pins and I have a little
BASIC engine. This little board also has the EPROM socket, 8255s and other
goodies, so it is a real little powerhouse for its time. ;O)
The manuals for the BASIC (very detailed) is online. ;O)
Cheers,
Magnus
Thanks, Mike. I can work with that.
73,
John
Mike Feher said the following on 01/02/2006 08:26 PM:
The URL below is the source code in Basic for the program that I wrote over
20 years ago. Since I think you both intend to change it to another language
the listing should suffice. I have so many great programs in Basic, some
that go back over 30 years, but, not too many machines support DOS easily
any more. I still use these programs however. I guess it is easier than me
to learn a new programming language. 73 - Mike
http://www.eozinc.com/DOS/Phase1.pdf
Mike B. Feher
89 Arnold Blvd.
Howell, NJ, 07731
732-886-5960
-----Original Message-----
From: time-nuts-bounces@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-bounces@febo.com] On
Behalf Of John Miles
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 2:30 PM
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Help w/integration problem
Hi, Mike --
That would indeed be interesting to see... but your file looks like a
compiled (or at least tokenized) binary. Is there an interpreter for
Win2K/XP that will let me list your program, or some other way to get a
plaintext listing?
BTW, I don't know if you saw the note I posted to the hp_agilent list or
not, but I've got PN.EXE, SSM.EXE, and 7470.EXE running on the 8568A now.
As soon as I get this noise-integration feature nailed down, I'll build a
new release that should work on your 8566A. Will be in touch offline.
-- john, KE5FX
-----Original Message-----
From: time-nuts-bounces@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-bounces@febo.com]On
Behalf Of Mike Feher
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 7:12 AM
To: 'Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement'
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Help w/integration problem
I figured that is what you would do. As I recall in this program I doubled
the answer to obtain the total double sided noise power. You will see that
in the program, towards the end, and can eliminate the doubling
if you only
want the single sided total power over the selected integration
limits. Here
is the URL:
http://www@eozinc.com/DOS/PHASE1.BAS
time-nuts mailing list
time-nuts@febo.com
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
time-nuts mailing list
time-nuts@febo.com
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 20060102.141403.105215125.cfmd@bredband.net, Magnus Danielson writes:
But to answer your question, younger people is still attracted and there is
still plenty of people having the right mind for these things around.
A major difference for these younger people is that the technology
of today is reverse engineering resistant.
True
There is practically nothing to learn today by taking things apart:
you can't see how they work.
True
On a similar topic, what worries me now is that it will get more and
more difficult for hobbiests to build things, now many chips are only
available in surface mount. That trend will continue.
I can't see too many children being able to build circuits the way I
used to, since it will be very difficult/impossible to solder components
together. That must have a knock-on effect later in life, since nobody
would have taken much interst in electronics as a child, since they were
unable to make anything.
Perhaps circuits published in magazines will need to use power
transistors, just so they are of a size that is practical to construct
without specialist tools and skill. Perhaps children of the future will
have to build your own 741 out of a bunch of 2N3055's.
I just bought myself a couple of Hakko model 850 hot air surface mount
soldering stations and various nozzles. It really does make it easy. But,
hey, the first things I used to build used tubes, and my first real
transistorized project was a regenerative receiver for 10 meters in the late
1950's. One of my first computer related projects did use the TO-3 style
transistors from which I built a computer using pairs of the transistors as
flip-flops. Used a rotary telephone dial as the input device. Output had to
be interpreted from light bulbs in binary. But, this was even before your
time Dr. Kirby, so who is to say where we are headed? For better or worse
things are different. - Mike
Mike B. Feher, N4FS
89 Arnold Blvd.
Howell, NJ, 07731
732-886-5960
-----Original Message-----
From: time-nuts-bounces@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-bounces@febo.com] On
Behalf Of Dr. David Kirkby
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 9:09 PM
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Help - Hope?
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 20060102.141403.105215125.cfmd@bredband.net, Magnus Danielson
writes:
But to answer your question, younger people is still attracted and there
is
still plenty of people having the right mind for these things around.
A major difference for these younger people is that the technology
of today is reverse engineering resistant.
True
There is practically nothing to learn today by taking things apart:
you can't see how they work.
True
On a similar topic, what worries me now is that it will get more and
more difficult for hobbiests to build things, now many chips are only
available in surface mount. That trend will continue.
I can't see too many children being able to build circuits the way I
used to, since it will be very difficult/impossible to solder components
together. That must have a knock-on effect later in life, since nobody
would have taken much interst in electronics as a child, since they were
unable to make anything.
Perhaps circuits published in magazines will need to use power
transistors, just so they are of a size that is practical to construct
without specialist tools and skill. Perhaps children of the future will
have to build your own 741 out of a bunch of 2N3055's.
time-nuts mailing list
time-nuts@febo.com
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
Could someone please give me a reference for the Maxim application note that
has been mentioned several times? I would like to see it, as when I wrote my
program it was based on my own knowledge, and I want to make sure we are in
agreement. Although, in the many years that I have used my program I have
not found it to be faulty. Pretty straight forward stuff really. But, there
have been times in the past when I thought that, and made mistakes. - Thanks
- Mike
Mike B. Feher
89 Arnold Blvd.
Howell, NJ, 07731
732-886-5960
-----Original Message-----
From: time-nuts-bounces@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-bounces@febo.com] On
Behalf Of Magnus Danielson
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 3:02 PM
To: time-nuts@febo.com
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Help w/integration problem
From: "John Miles" jmiles@pop.net
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Help w/integration problem
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 11:42:33 -0800
Message-ID: PKEGJHPHLLBACEOICCBJIEPKGBAA.jmiles@pop.net
Yes, the magic happends between (11) and (12). The integration is
0 to infinity
and not -infinity to infinity, since we already know it mirrors arround
Mind you that these are twice the power, not twice the amplitude.
The energy at
fc-f will have the same energy and be coherent to the energy at
fc+f, so these
energies add up perfectly. There is a special-case when you can't
argue like
this, but we can look the other way here and pick out the real reference
literature when we need to.
Thanks; you're right, given the integration limits in the Maxim note,
their
way makes more sense.
Indeed. It took some time to get sure, but once I was sure it was obvious.
On page 7 of the Zarlink app note, the x2 factor is left
outside the radical
sign:
RMS = sqrt(sum) * 2
Looks like sloppy work to me compared to the Maxim paper, which gives
motivation to the formulas.
Agreed. I'll leave the *2 operation inside the radicand. Much appreciate
the help!
Anytime! Also, if you look at the Maxim paper, it rather looks like a
graphical
error not to extend the squareroot sign all the way. The logical place to
put
the 2 if not included in the square-root is actually before as customary.
Cheers,
Magnus
time-nuts mailing list
time-nuts@febo.com
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
http://pdfserv.maxim-ic.com/en/an/AN3359.pdf is the Maxim note I was
referring to.
This HP app note, describing an advanced noise-measurement program for the
8568A, is excellent as well:
http://www.speakeasy.net/~jmiles1/an270-2.pdf
With a graph acquired from the junker 8568A I bought for GPIB work, I'm
getting essentially-identical results to what they show in figure 4. Makes
me a lot more confident in the math, as well as the condition of my $450
8568A.
-- john, KE5FX
Could someone please give me a reference for the Maxim
application note that
has been mentioned several times? I would like to see it, as when
I wrote my
program it was based on my own knowledge, and I want to make sure
we are in
agreement. Although, in the many years that I have used my program I have
not found it to be faulty. Pretty straight forward stuff really.
But, there
have been times in the past when I thought that, and made
mistakes. - Thanks
- Mike
Mike B. Feher
89 Arnold Blvd.
Howell, NJ, 07731
732-886-5960
John -
Thanks, good basic stuff. Right now my biggest concern is the amount of
acceptable phase jitter for a given data rate for higher order modulations.
I know that the rule of thumb is not to exceed 10% of the Euclidian distance
between phase points in the constellation, but, how do you obtain the RMS
phase jitter for a given symbol rate? I have seen literature that states you
have to integrate all the way to Rs, but for the higher orders above BPSK, I
think you only need to integrate to Rs/2. Naturally you still have to add 3
dB to the number prior to calculating the phase jitter in degrees due to the
double sideband. I have pretty much convinced myself that going to Rs/2 is
the upper bound of the integral. The question is, what is the lower bound? I
have seen numbers as low as 1%, which seem absurd to me. I think even 10 %
would probably not degrade BER for a given Eb/No to make a difference. Any
ideas appreciated. - Thanks - Mike
Mike B. Feher
89 Arnold Blvd.
Howell, NJ, 07731
732-886-5960
-----Original Message-----
From: time-nuts-bounces@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-bounces@febo.com] On
Behalf Of John Miles
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 11:14 PM
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Help w/integration problem
http://pdfserv.maxim-ic.com/en/an/AN3359.pdf is the Maxim note I was
referring to.
This HP app note, describing an advanced noise-measurement program for the
8568A, is excellent as well:
http://www.speakeasy.net/~jmiles1/an270-2.pdf
With a graph acquired from the junker 8568A I bought for GPIB work, I'm
getting essentially-identical results to what they show in figure 4. Makes
me a lot more confident in the math, as well as the condition of my $450
8568A.
-- john, KE5FX
Could someone please give me a reference for the Maxim
application note that
has been mentioned several times? I would like to see it, as when
I wrote my
program it was based on my own knowledge, and I want to make sure
we are in
agreement. Although, in the many years that I have used my program I have
not found it to be faulty. Pretty straight forward stuff really.
But, there
have been times in the past when I thought that, and made
mistakes. - Thanks
- Mike
Mike B. Feher
89 Arnold Blvd.
Howell, NJ, 07731
732-886-5960
time-nuts mailing list
time-nuts@febo.com
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts