[time-nuts] Modified Total Deviation calculation

John Ackermann N8UR jra at febo.com
Tue Jan 19 13:13:13 UTC 2010


I see the makings of a great project here... a standard set of routines 
for time/frequency/stability statistics.  My only request is to code 
unobfuscatedly (sp?) to make translation into other languages easier 
(e.g., I'd love a perl module with these functions, but am a complete 
schmoe at figuring out C).

John
----

John Miles wrote:
> If you'd like to make the C source available, I'll look at building an
> incremental version...?
> 
> -- john, KE5FX
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: time-nuts-bounces at febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-bounces at febo.com]On
>> Behalf Of Magnus Danielson
>> Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 7:10 PM
>> To: Tom Van Baak; Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
>> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Modified Total Deviation calculation
>>
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Just to let people know...
>>
>> Tom Van Baak wrote:
>>>> TOTdev  0.2922318781 0.0913474326 0.0340653025
>>>> MTOTdev 0.2303857898 0.0555288598 0.0195467513
>>>> HTOTdev 0.2093297293 0.0958776504 0.0305163951
>>>> The MTOTdev numbers according to page 118 (of PDF, page number 108
>>>> according to the printed pagenumbers) should be
>>>>
>>>> Modified Total Dev 2.418528e-01 6.499161e-02 2.287774e-02
>>>>
>>>> Do anyone happend to have an implementation (in source) of MTOTdev at
>>>> hand giving the NIST SP1065 numbers?
>>>>
>>>> Please note that W. Riley has about the same document in his Handbook,
>>>> and it reflects the same number. I would also suspect that a STABLE32
>>>> run would give those numbers.
>>> Almost but not quite; Stable32 gives:
>>>
>>> Tot Dev (1,10,100) 2.9223e-01, 9.1347e-02, 3.4065e-02
>>> Mod Tot Dev (1,10,100) 2.0664e-01, 5.5529e-02, 1.9547e-02
>>> Had Tot Dev (1,10,100) 2.9439e-01, 9.6148e-02, 3.0504e-02
>>>
>>> I don't use total deviation here myself but I'll look into it for you.
>> With the kind assistance of Tom, we where able to get the answer. The
>> values given as results in the table on page 118 of NIST SP1065 had been
>> bias-adjusted with 1/sqrt(0.73) to overcome the bias. My numbers now
>> correlated with that table for MTOTDEV and TTOTDEV.
>>
>> I can now continue with other algorithms.
>>
>> Many thanks goes to Tom and for Bill Riley to provide the answer!
>>
>> 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.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.





More information about the Time-nuts_lists.febo.com mailing list