Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by klubnl.pl (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8+deb8u2) with ESMTP id w09GZLU7027248 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 17:35:24 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1eYwn6-0007Rn-A5 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 16:30:20 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1eYwn6-0007Re-1a for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 16:30:20 +0000 Received: from lethe.lipkowski.org ([151.80.54.59] helo=lipkowski.org) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eYwn3-00063D-Cw for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 16:30:18 +0000 Received: from mailn.lipkowski.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lipkowski.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8+deb8u2) with ESMTP id w09GWLr8032601 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 17:32:21 +0100 Received: from localhost (sq5bpf@localhost) by mailn.lipkowski.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) with ESMTP id w09GWKCa032597 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 17:32:20 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: mailn.lipkowski.org: sq5bpf owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 17:32:19 +0100 (CET) From: Jacek Lipkowski To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <160d0cc9190-1720-7a399@webjas-vaa200.srv.aolmail.net> <5A54E3EC.30107@posteo.de> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score-sq5bpf: -2.9 () ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.75 on 10.1.3.10 X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, David Weinreich wrote: > My question is how long does it take to measure 8270.01953125 Hz? Based on my experience, it > seems that it would take more than 3 years. Where am I going wrong. [...] Content analysis details: (-0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: e09cca6d8e44a91eadbdfb3e1b8aec09 Subject: RE: LF: EbNaut at 8270.01953125 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=SUBJ_HAS_UNIQ_ID, TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL 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 On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, David Weinreich wrote: > My question is how long does it take to measure 8270.01953125 Hz? Based on my experience, it > seems that it would take more than 3 years. Where am I going wrong. consider a "hardware" example: you can do the stuff that most frequency counters do: they have two inputs: a slow reference clock (like 1Hz, which gives 1Hz measurement resolution), and the measured frequency input. you count the number of input cycles every reference clock pulse. to correctly measure 8270.01953125 Hz you need a 0.00000001 Hz reference (which is one cycle per 100000000 seconds, or 3.17 years). but you can do it the other way, just exchange the frequency counter inputs: have a fast reference clock, and count the number of the reference cycles every input frequency cycle. this way the measurement takes one input cycle (1/8270 seconds), the faster the reference clock, the more resolution you have. VY 73 Jacek / SQ5BPF