[time-nuts] Continuous timestamping reciprocal counter question

[Tijd Dingen]

Thanks for the sanity check! :)

I was indeed hoping to be able to get away with "not every Nth edge" since that simplifies thing.

On the subject of extracting frequency out of the dataseet, for now I use ordinary least squares. What other approaches do you know of that are used for this particular applicaction?

regards,
Fred



----- Original Message -----
From: Magnus Danielson <magnus at rubidium.dyndns.org>
To: time-nuts at febo.com
Cc: 
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Continuous timestamping reciprocal counter question

On 05/13/2011 04:56 PM, Tijd Dingen wrote:
> To calculate the frequency from these time stamps you have to do some slop fitting. If you use a least squares matrix approach for that I could see how the more random distribution could help prevent singularities.
> 
> The only reason I can see now to really try harder to always get the exact Nth edge is for numerical solving. As in, should you choose a solver that only operates optimally for equidistant samples.
> 
> Any thoughts?

You don't have to get exactly every Nth edge. But you need to count the edges. A continuous time-stamping counter will count time and edges and the time-stamp will contain both (except in some special conditions where it isn't needed).

There are a number of different approaches on how frequency is extracted out of the dataset, however very few of them assumes perfect event count distance.

Cheers,
Magnus

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