X-GM-THRID: 1201479282226314978 X-Gmail-Labels: rsgb lf X-Gmail-Received: b4bee269589dd42d1c38bd1f19168842b99be825 Delivered-To: daveyxm@gmail.com Received: by 10.54.70.6 with SMTP id s6cs6682wra; Sun, 23 Apr 2006 12:47:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.43.4 with SMTP id v4mr216215qbj; Sun, 23 Apr 2006 12:47:50 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id d5si93489qbd.2006.04.23.12.47.48; Sun, 23 Apr 2006 12:47:50 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (gmail.com: 193.82.116.20 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1FXkV9-0002sL-VZ for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2006 20:44:11 +0100 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1FXkV9-0002sC-IT for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2006 20:44:11 +0100 Received: from smtp806.mail.ukl.yahoo.com ([217.12.12.196]) by relay1.thorcom.net with smtp (Exim 4.51) id 1FXmJA-0007Gm-SK for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2006 22:40:14 +0100 Received: (qmail 60660 invoked from network); 23 Apr 2006 19:42:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO LAPTOP) (peter.martinez@btinternet.com@86.135.54.231 with login) by smtp806.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 23 Apr 2006 19:42:47 -0000 Message-ID: <004301c6670e$194ce270$0300a8c0@LAPTOP> From: "Peter Martinez" To: References: <444AF315.9020304@telus.net> Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 19:42:47 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,AWL=-0.520 Subject: LF: Re: PhaseScope beta 1.0 release... Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 5873 Scott: Further to my last re the PhaseScope instructions, I think the instructions relating to the PPS polarity might be faulty. If the PPS is inverted by the soundcard, the program will think the negative-going edge is the one it should lock to, and there will be no way to tell that it's wrong. In other words, regardless of which polarity you select, the displayed active edge will always appear right. What will change, if your PPS is very short, is that in the correct case it will have the inactive edge trailing it, and if the polarity is wrong the inactive edge (i.e. the REAL 1-sec event) will precede the edge to which the program has locked. If the user knows that his PPS is short (i.e. he can see both edges on the display), there IS therefore a way to describe to him how to recognise which is the correct polarity for his soundcard. If the users PPS is not short, for example 50:50 like mine, there is no way to resolve the problem by looking at the screen. The ONLY way to be sure is to see if the program responds to the detected edge at the 1-second time mark, identifying this by some means external to the program itself. This would have to involve the display blinking (or some similar event like a pip of sound) as it processed the detected edge, and the user verifying that this occured exactly on a utc mark, either by watching the PPS waveform itself (on a scope or meter with known polarity, not the unknown soundcard in question!), or by audible comparison with a WWV pip. I don't think you can ignore this and tell the user that it doesn't matter which edge he uses. If a given GPS specifies that the positive-going edge is on the utc mark, we cannot assume anything about the stability of the negative-going edge at all. 73 Peter