Volker, Silly mistake, I was changing the sample interval in the acquire menu of TimeLab and it did not match the 5370B. When I changed the display rate control and used the monitor command to set the sampling interval as directed by John all was right with the world. Tom, What did you do to solve the battery charging circuit issues in the FTS 1050A? Thanks, Bob Darby On 7/8/2013 2:26 PM, Volker Esper wrote: > > Bob, > > Sorry, I'm not sure, if I've understood the issue - what exactly did > you wrong? > > Thank you > > Volker > > > Am 08.07.2013 14:48, schrieb Robert Darby: >> John, >> >> After a night's sleep and a rereading of your post I finally >> realized what I was doing wrong. I did not understand the the role >> of the sampling interval setting and the display rate setting on the >> 5370. When I follow the process below the results are totally >> consistent. >> >> Sorry to taken your time and thanks all for your help. Now to find >> the original issue..... >> >> Bob Darby >> >> On 7/7/2013 8:57 PM, John Miles wrote: >>> So the only difference between the test setups is the setting of the >>> Display Rate control on the 5370, correct? You're allowing TimeLab >>> to estimate the sample rate automatically, and giving it enough time >>> to converge on a stable reading before hitting 'Start Measurement'? >>> You're correct in that changing the real-world sample rate should >>> yield results that are identical (or at least very similar) to >>> resampling the phase data after the fact. In frequency mode, dead >>> time between readings would make that an iffy proposition, but for >>> data taken in TI mode the outcomes should be close. -- john, KE5FX >>> Miles Design LLC >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. >

No prob! It's a complicated business. -- john, KE5FX Miles Design LLC > -----Original Message----- > From: time-nuts-bounces@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-bounces@febo.com] On > Behalf Of Robert Darby > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 5:48 AM > To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement > Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Question about effect of sample interval on ADEV > > John, > > After a night's sleep and a rereading of your post I finally realized > what I was doing wrong. I did not understand the the role of the > sampling interval setting and the display rate setting on the 5370. > When I follow the process below the results are totally consistent. > > Sorry to taken your time and thanks all for your help. Now to find the > original issue..... > > Bob Darby > > On 7/7/2013 8:57 PM, John Miles wrote: > > So the only difference between the test setups is the setting of the > > Display Rate control on the 5370, correct? You're allowing TimeLab to > > estimate the sample rate automatically, and giving it enough time to > > converge on a stable reading before hitting 'Start Measurement'? > > You're correct in that changing the real-world sample rate should > > yield results that are identical (or at least very similar) to > > resampling the phase data after the fact. In frequency mode, dead time > > between readings would make that an iffy proposition, but for data > > taken in TI mode the outcomes should be close. -- john, KE5FX Miles > > Design LLC > > _______________________________________________ > 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.

FYI: I tend to record all serial (RS232/GPIB/USB/LAN) data from counters, analyzers, receivers, environmental sensors with a precision MJD prefix. This allows both tight correlation among different instruments in the lab and also allows ADEV-like tools to estimate, and then gradually refine to high levels of precision, the actual data rate, during data collection. Yes, it adds a few extra bytes, but it can be valuable information sometimes and storage is cheaper than it was a decade ago. /tvb ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Miles" <john@miles.io> To: "'Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement'" <time-nuts@febo.com> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 2:17 PM Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Question about effect of sample interval on ADEV > No prob! It's a complicated business. > > -- john, KE5FX > Miles Design LLC > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: time-nuts-bounces@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-bounces@febo.com] On >> Behalf Of Robert Darby >> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 5:48 AM >> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement >> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Question about effect of sample interval on ADEV >> >> John, >> >> After a night's sleep and a rereading of your post I finally realized >> what I was doing wrong. I did not understand the the role of the >> sampling interval setting and the display rate setting on the 5370. >> When I follow the process below the results are totally consistent. >> >> Sorry to taken your time and thanks all for your help. Now to find the >> original issue..... >> >> Bob Darby >> >> On 7/7/2013 8:57 PM, John Miles wrote: >> > So the only difference between the test setups is the setting of the >> > Display Rate control on the 5370, correct? You're allowing TimeLab to >> > estimate the sample rate automatically, and giving it enough time to >> > converge on a stable reading before hitting 'Start Measurement'? >> > You're correct in that changing the real-world sample rate should >> > yield results that are identical (or at least very similar) to >> > resampling the phase data after the fact. In frequency mode, dead time >> > between readings would make that an iffy proposition, but for data >> > taken in TI mode the outcomes should be close. -- john, KE5FX Miles >> > Design LLC >>