[time-nuts] TPLL secret reveled

Fri Jun 11 08:23:41 UTC 2010

Ulrich,

On 11 June 2010 02:40, Ulrich Bangert <df6jb at ulrich-bangert.de> wrote:
> Steve,
>
> I do not want to comment the whole of your posting because I am tired of the
> discussion myself too.

Whilst you choose one point to pick on, you do me no favours by not
tackling the main points of my last comment, just choosing to argue on
one small debatable point. I feel considerably let down by this and
wonder if your lack of comment is more to do with the fact that you
have no argument than being tired of this topic.

> But if I read things like:
>
>> The measurement of phase data is
>> taken over the current period of each waveform and therefore,
>> assuming the waveform contains noise, each measurement will
>> not be be spaced evenly at Tau0, it will be spaced at the
>> current length of the period of the waveform which will vary
>> with its noise component.
>
> then I think that you have re-check your basic conceptions on frequency and
> phase measurements as well.

I have seen raw time period, phase, data being directly used for the
calculation of ADEV in the discussions and examples on this list.
These have taken no extra measures to process the data and the result
has been directly deemed as true ADEV. This is the basis of my
comments on this matter.

> Naturally the zero crossings of waves are NOT always on top of the
> measurement times as given by Tau0. Specially this fact is the case with
> heterodyne methods with beat frequencies of as low as 1 Hz where the zero
> crossings of the wave may be hundreds of milliseconds away from the
> measurement times as required by a given Tau0.

Well, your aware of this.

> But instead to conclude that phase measurements are not well suited for AD
> computations as YOU do, horology's simple answer to this is to compute phase
> values that are normalized to the epoch of the given Tau0 with VERY SIMPLE
> MATH as for example shown by Greenhall in
>
> http://ipnpr.jpl.nasa.gov/progress_report/42-143/143K.pdf

OK, I have read to 13 page (unlucky for some) paper a couple of times
now and I am having trouble finding any "VERY SIMPLE MATH" in it. What
I did find was a term "integrated interpolation" which seems to
describe something akin to what I have been discussing with Warren's
design for some time now. I will continue to read this paper by Mr.
Greenhall as this geezer seems to know what he is on about it's just
that he is only able to communicate it to people of the same ilk as
himself.

> Note that the main topic of this article is a different one but it explains
> how to handle the phase data correctly.

Once I discover it, I'm sure i will be very much more educated, thanks.

> The fact that almost all of the world is handling phase data while you seem
> to have the proof in your hands that this is completely wrong should have
> made you at least...say: Handle this case with care. Because in such a
> situation either winning the Nobel prize with it or to be committed into a
> closed ward are both possible outcomes of the claim.

Now, unfortunately I have taken your words here very personally as I
have been subject to commitment to a closed ward on occasion in the
past and I do not take kindly to this flippant remark. All I can say
is that I'm probably the only one here who has a certificate to say
that he is sane and able to be released back into society. The subject
of mental illness is nothing to be used for humour, thank you very
much.

Best regards,
Steve

> Best regards
> Ulrich Bangert
>
>
>> -----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: time-nuts-bounces at febo.com
>> [mailto:time-nuts-bounces at febo.com] Im Auftrag von Steve Rooke
>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. Juni 2010 15:28
>> An: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
>> Betreff: Re: [time-nuts] TPLL secret reveled
>>
>>
>> Ulrich,
>>
>> May I please tackle some points here please. Regarding
>> Warren's implementation of the TPLL, these points have been
>> covered before, several times, but there is obviously an
>> inability for either Warren or myself to communicate
>> effectively on these matters.
>>
>> On 10 June 2010 22:36, Ulrich Bangert <df6jb at ulrich-bangert.de> wrote:
>> > Warren,
>> >
>> > I know you like my software and therefore please allow me
>> to put my 50
>> > cts. into the discussion:
>> >
>> >> The reason that the simple TPLL works so good
>> >> but is hard for some "experts" to accept, seems
>> >> to come down to the fact that this method uses
>> >> Frequency and not Phase to make the raw data
>> >> log used to then calculate ADEV data.
>> >
>> > This belief is the biggest misconceptions of yours. No one has ever
>> > denied that correct ADEV values can be computed from frequency data
>> > and (as far as I believe) Allan came out with a formula for
>> phase data
>> > and for frequency data at the same time. The problem is a bit more
>> > subtle but by far not out of the reach as a good technician as you.
>>
>> The correct calculation of ADEV requires that the average of
>> the variable be taken over a specific time interval. When you
>> measure averaged frequency at specific time intervals of Tau0
>> this requirement is met. The measurement of phase data is
>> taken over the current period of each waveform and therefore,
>> assuming the waveform contains noise, each measurement will
>> not be be spaced evenly at Tau0, it will be spaced at the
>> current length of the period of the waveform which will vary
>> with its noise component. To further make this point clear,
>> even though the unknown frequency may be divided down to 1Hz
>> for Tau0 = 1HZ, each successive measurement of phase data
>> will occur at a time interval of 1s +- current noise
>> component, this does not satisfy Allan's equation for
>> AVAR/ADEV calculation.
>>
>> > I would like to keep the topic of deadtime out of the discussion.
>> > Therefore please consider a situation where two old fashion
>> frequency
>> > counters (the ones that were only counting) are
>> synchronized in such a
>> > way that they produce frequency data at a Tau0 of 1 second
>> without any
>> > deadtime, the first counter for second n then the second
>> counter for
>> > second n+1 then the first counter for second n+2 and so on. If you
>> > feed the produced data into Allans frequency formula then
>> you will get
>> > a perfect ADEV calculation out ouf it. The only drawback is that it
>> > will have a high noise floor because with the counters counting
>> > complete periods of the wave their effective resolution may be
>> > considered 1 period length of the wave.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> > Now let us consider what the old fashioned counter REALLY
>> does: Over a
>> > gate time of 1 second (identical to Tau0) it COUNTS the number of
>> > WHOLE periods. Basically the old fashioned counter does make an
>> > integrating phase measurement over the time integral Tau0.
>> The result
>> > is not displayed in units of the phase domain but it units of the
>> > frequency domain but the key point is that the frequency
>> measurement
>> > gathered this way contains the same information contents as
>> if a phase
>> > measurement had taken place. Therefore it becomes clear immediately
>> > why one must use a slightly different formula for the
>> frequency values
>> > but why otherwise everything we know from phase data is
>> contained in
>> > in the frequency data as well.
>>
>> The Allan equation specifically requires integrated values
>> over a specified time interval. To include values outside of
>> this specific time interval with the collection of phase data
>> would be incorrect. By it's very nature, the collection of
>> data in the phase domain does not lend itself to measurements
>> at specified time intervals as the tail wags the dog.
>> Frequency data in this case is taken over a specific gate
>> time and it is this gate time which is kept constant,
>> therefore the data is spaced at a specific time interval.
>> Phase domain data is controlled by the length of the period
>> of the waveform and so it is that which determines the time
>> interval of the measurements. I can see what people are
>> getting confused about because for a single cycle of a
>> waveform, it is true that frequency = the reciprocal of the
>> period but that is too simple when we look at calculating
>> Allan Variance.
>>
>> > Next consider the case that the frequency of the DUT
>> lineary changes
>> > with a negative slope during the first half of a second to
>> a minimum
>> > at the center of the second and then changes with the same but
>> > positive slope so that at the end of the second the
>> frequency is the
>> > same as at the beginning of the second. Clearly a phase measurement
>> > will reveal this behaviour and the old fashioned counter
>> will as well.
>> > This is why we say that the phase measurement as well as
>> the frequency
>> > measurement gathered this way are characteristic for the
>> WHOLE of the
>> > second of Tau0.
>>
>> Agreed, and this is a valid point which will come up later here.
>>
>> > The next improvement to the old fashioned pure counter was the
>> > invention of subclock interpolation schemes. A counter using this
>> > works so: After the beginning of the gate time it waits of the next
>> > zero crossing and then measures the time up to the last
>> zero crossing
>> > within the gate time with a fixed resolution of say 1 ns (like the
>> > well known Racal Dana 1992/1996/1998). The frequency value
>> is then the
>> > result of a computation. If you consider this working principle you
>> > notice that this is even more a phase meter like thing than the
>> > original counter only thing. For that reason frequency measurements
>> > with a counter like that are suited as well for ADEV calculation.
>>
>> This is really a simple case of the frequency meter having a
>> much smaller effective gate time and hence giving an accurate
>> reading of frequency at the specified period, IE. you select
>> a gate time of 1s to obtain a reading every 1s but the
>> counter gives the frequency reading over a period slightly
>> less than this period. It is not specifically phase data as
>> the last zero crossing is not measured directly, it's just
>> determined to be within 1ns gate time so this still makes it
>> a frequency measurement. There are some other issues with
>> this in that what happens with the little bit of the waveform
>> between the subclock and the selected gate time, is this
>> reflected in the subsequent time interval measurement or is
>> anything lost which would result in dead-time (but you didn't
>> want to go there).
>>
>> > The next improvement in counter technology is applying
>> tricks as not
>> > to measure a single time interval during the gate time but instead
>> > making thousands of time-delayed measurements and then applying
>> > statistics to it. The Agilent 53131/2 and the new Pendulum counters
>> > belong to this class. They deliver even more frequency
>> resolution but
>> > is has been shown and discussed in another thread here why
>> frequency
>> > measurements with these class of counters are NOT WELL
>> suited for ADEV
>> > calculation. That is why we let them out.
>>
>> And who can afford them anyway :)
>>
>> > Once we have understood these facts let us return to the tight pll
>> > method. Let us consider what would happen with the above
>> case with the
>> > frequency changing down and up lineary within one second.
>> Well, since
>> > the pll tightly tracks the dut in frequency the loop
>> voltage will be
>> > the exact copy in the voltage domain of what is happening in the
>> > frequency domain. The key point is that the integrating
>> process that
>> > is involved in the nature of the counter only measurement
>> and also in
>> > the improved counter measurement does NOT take place INSIDE the pll
>> > loop.
>>
>> Well, this is the function of the oversampling measurement
>> method which we have been trying to explain all this time. As
>> the voltage of the EFC goes up and down, or down and up,
>> during the Tau0 specific period, the oversampled measurements
>> are taken and subsequently averaged to produce an average
>> measurement at Tau0 time. Each of the oversampled
>> measurements are added together and divided by the number of
>> those measurements taken over the Tau0 period. This is simply
>> performed by a computer. Do we understand this point yet as I
>> have described this in some detail previously. I guess I had
>> not said that this averaging was performed by a computer in
>> so many words but it has been said that the oversampled
>> measurements are taken by an ADC DAQ so presumably that is
>> connected to a computer which is obviously performing the calculation.
>>
>> > Had you looked to the loop voltage at a Tau0 of 1 s you
>> would not have
>> > noticed ANYTHING from the frequency changes because the
>> loop voltage
>> > measurements deliver an instantaneous frequency information and not
>> > one that is characteristic for your Tau0. Because the loop voltage
>> > contains INSTANTANEOUS frequency information it is different from
>> > counter originated data and needs special treatment: It needs
>> > integration afterwards which in the original NIST method is
>> applied by
>> > the voltage to frequency counter and the following impulse counter.
>> > The case of the frequency changing down and up lineary within one
>> > second documents in the impulse counter values if looked at
>> at a Tau0
>> > of 1 s but it does not document in the loop voltage if
>> looked at at 1
>> > s. That is the reason why measuring the loop voltage with an a/d
>> > converter delivers samples of instantaneous frequency data
>> that do not
>> > compare 1:1 to values measured with conventional counters.
>>
>> And that is why oversampling is being used my friend. I have
>> even spoken about the VFC before as I was aware of this, as
>> its action can be seen from the NIST documentation. Warren's
>> implementation of the TPLL takes into account any variances
>> that occur during the whole period of Tau0 and averages those
>> out so the value of the EFC voltage for Tau0 is the average
>> NOT the instantaneous value. This point has also been laboured by me.
>>
>> > Had you included the voltage to frequency converter and counted the
>> > impulses coming from it with a PC and some software then
>> Bruce would
>> > have applauded to you because these ingredients would have
>> performed
>> > the necessary integration over the loop voltage. Since you left out
>> > the integration in hardware Bruce has been pointing to the
>> fact that
>> > you need integration in the software if you want to claim that you
>> > have build an implementation of NIST's tight pll method. If
>> you leave
>> > out the integration in software IT IS NOT NIST'S TIGHT PLL
>> METHOD with
>> > its well known properties. Instead it is WARREN'S TIGHT PLL METHOD
>> > with its not so well known properties. WARREN'S TIGHT PLL
>> METHOD must
>> > not be bad a priori but since it is different from the NIST
>> method you
>> > cannot rely on annything that has been said about the NIST
>> method. You
>> > will have to show in what cases it works well and in what cases it
>> > works not so well completely on your own.
>>
>> Well, I guess that Bruce did not see that the effect of the
>> VFC was being exactly duplicated by this oversampling. OK, so
>> what's with the integration with the PLL loop filter? Well,
>> try feeding two oscillators into a phase comparator and then
>> feeding the output directly into an EFC of one of the
>> oscillators without any form of dampening. See how much fun
>> you have trying to get that stable. So you include a simple
>> low pass filter to stabilise the loop but you make sure that
>> the BW of this low pass filter does not interfere with the
>> reference oscillator tracking the unknown oscillator and all
>> its noise (as much as is possible). This means that you
>> choose a filter that has a wider BW than the Tau0 you are
>> measuring at. The instantaneous value of the EFC at any time
>> now will not reflect the integrated average of the EFC over
>> the Tau0 period but by sampling this value many times
>> (oversampling) during the Tau0 period and averaging those
>> values, a true approximation, limited ony by the oversampling
>> rate, of the average value of the EFC over the Tau0 period
>> can be calculated. So this is why Warren has been claiming
>> his method is the same as the NIST TPLL method. There has
>> obviously been a complete lack of ability of Warren and
>> myself to communicate these points to yourselves. I do not
>> have the classical university vocabulary that I'm sure those
>> of you who have not understood what I have been saying. I
>> have tried repeatedly to write the operation of this up in
>> plain English but it's blatantly obvious that I am not
>> speaking the correct technical banter that is required to get
>> concepts across to some of you.
>>
>> > I understand that an important part of your argumentation
>> is the fact
>> > that you do not look at the loop voltage at a rate of Tau0 (which
>> > would be a catastrophe for my example) but at a much higher
>> rate that
>> > you call oversampling with some right. Therefore the down and up in
>> > frequency of my example indeed is contained in your samples of the
>> > loop voltage. What you have to proove is that the signal processing
>> > that you apply to your samples basically IS EQUIVALENT to the
>> > integration of the NIST method. My last posting concerning
>> this case
>> > already indicated that real world experiments are a limited
>> tool for
>> > that purpose. You would need a strong mathematical
>> treatment to show
>> > this equivalence for ALL practical cases. Otherwise it will stay
>> > Warren's tight pll method and we need to wait for the next years to
>> > come to see its impact on the world of scientifics.
>>
>> I believe that my mathematics education obtained at
>> high-school and college  is sufficient to explain this. Each
>> oversampled value taken over the period of Tau0 is added
>> together and then that sum of all those oversampled values is
>> divided by the number of the oversampling. This seems to be
>> be the normal way that we determine the average of a group of
>> numbers, I'm pretty sure of that or does anyone wish to
>> challenge that. I'm not sure that there is the need for any
>> "strong mathematical treatment" to show how to average a
>> group of numbers, I seem to remember doing this sort of thing
>> at the age of 11. Now maybe there is some fancy-pancy signal
>> processing thingy that Bruce and yourself thinks that is
>> needed to be done here but I'm buggered if I know why that
>> would be the case unless this is the secret key to the time
>> lords domain where only true time gods are allowed :)  (that
>> word is in common usage here)
>>
>> > It is by far not as simple as that:
>>
>> And it's not as complicated as you make out.
>>
>> >> The reason that the simple TPLL works so good
>> >> but is hard for some "experts" to accept, seems
>> >> to come down to the fact that this method uses
>> >> Frequency and not Phase to make the raw data
>> >> log used to then calculate ADEV data.
>> >
>> > and you should check yourself whether you really want to stay at
>> > claimes like that. Had you listened a bit more on what
>> Bruce has been
>> > saying in the last weeks we would perhaps already have a
>> nice hardware
>> > (Yours!) AND a correct mathematical treatment of the samples
>> > (delivered by Bruce). This missed opportunity is a real pity.
>>
>> I think I have already described the differences between data
>> taken in the frequency and phase domains and how this affects
>> the calculation of the Allan functions. I think that if
>> Bruce, and perhaps others, had really taken the time to
>> understand what was actually being proposed, then this whole
>> affair would not have degraded into this mess in the first
>> place. Another case of communication being the biggest
>> barrier to communication.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Steve
>>
>> > Best regards
>> > Ulrich Bangert
>>
>> --
>> Steve Rooke - ZL3TUV & G8KVD
>> The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once.
>> - Einstein
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>

-- 
Steve Rooke - ZL3TUV & G8KVD
The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once.
- Einstein