[time-nuts] Advantages & Disadvantages of the TPLL Method

WarrenS warrensjmail-one at yahoo.com
Sun Jun 20 23:23:30 EDT 2010


Well so much for my short 'berry' answers, that did not last long, sorry 
berry readers.

You think you are tired of hearing the same ol repeated stuff over and over 
and over ...,
Think about how tired I am of needing to repeat it.

The simple TPLL works good enough to measure any OCXO that I'm aware of.
(Oh yea, I said that already about a hundred times, and tested it more than 
that)
To me and some others that has now been "proven" well enough to make this 
method useful.
What else do you and most others need to know to use it?
Do you need to know exactly why mine works so good or how to make it better 
or how good one could make it with 'new' parts??

When was the last time anyone needed to fully understand the inter workings 
and details and limitations of their cell phone or TV or their TSC 5120A 
before they were able to make use of it?
I don't need to understand it better, remember I'm the one with the working 
unit.
I'm not looking to make mine better than I already know how to do.

What I have made more than clear by now, is that they should not rely on me 
to tell them exactly how I did it,
If someone wants to understand it better, then they should build their own.
If they are not able to do that or at the VERY least come up with their own 
schematic with the information given on John's report, then they certainly 
are not going to be able to improve on it or analyze it.

What I have missed the point of and do not understand, is why any real 
expert would ever need to know exactly how I did it, before they are able to 
analyze it.
It is so simple that they can do it any number of different ways.  Why do 
they ONLY want to analyze mine?
They need to make their own schematic and analyze it. If they find it works 
worse than I've said, sent me a copy and I'll tell them what they did wrong.
Likely theirs will work and analyze much better that what I've done and 
said, because most will not make the KISS compromises that I have, and will 
not want to use the same 6 or so parts I had in my parts bin.

>what you've demonstrated very clearly so far is
>that you just don't know whether or not that's true. (how good the results 
>are)
That is close to right. It is others that do not know, I do agree to that 
much.
I know the limitations of what I've built and that it is not perfect and I 
know how to make it even better.
But it is good enough and I do already know how good that is.
And the reason some say that I must now prove this to others is what I don't 
yet get.
I'm not trying to get anyone to believe I know what I'm doing,
I'm just trying to convince others that the TPLL method can work and is a 
viable alternative sometimes.
Now it would seem that has already been done by all of John's test.

Some have suggested that I should just stop responding to these post, it is 
going nowhere, and they are right,
but I have to admit, I'm having too much fun.
And if this can bring a little joy or education to others or make the TPLL 
better understood then it is worth it,
even when it is at my expense.

wow OK, I must concede that JUST because this TPLL BB has ALWAYS worked in 
the past for every condition and for hundreds of test,
this is not conclusive "prove" that it will not be completely wrong any or 
every time in the future.
If this is the point that is now trying to be made with one of the later 
post,
Then at least ONE of us, is on the wrong SITE.

OH, and here is the real topper for all this.
Because I have made something that is so very basic and simple and obvious 
and cheap and with so few parts and using a method that some so called 
expert(s) did  not seem to know about or understand because it is so old, 
then I must be a fool or a genius.
SO Why is it OR? did you ever consider maybe it is both. :-)
It is pretty obvious with the hindsight that I've gained about some Nut 
experts, that only a real fool would of ever started this project, let alone 
try and tell ANYONE about it.

Have fun and do try and do what you enjoy or at least enjoy what you're 
doing.
I am.
ws

**********************

[time-nuts] Advantages & Disadvantages of the TPLL Method
GandalfG8 at aol.com GandalfG8 at aol.com
Sun Jun 20 22:05:14 UTC 2010

In a message dated 20/06/2010 22:11:51 GMT Daylight Time,
warrensjmail-one at yahoo.com writes:

I nice  short response,
but
it shows missed the MAJOR difference. You need to  see:
<  http://www.thegleam.com/ke5fx/tpll.htm  >

-----------------
Warren

Your stock answer of claiming that everyone and his granny is missing  the
point is wearing a bit thin, and despite your suggestion I have not missed
anything either and that includes John's results.

Those results, as far as they go, look very good, and I have no doubt  you
deserve credit for what you've achieved, but what YOU seem to have  missed,
or conveniently continue to ignore, is the need to be able to  prove, or
provide sufficient information so that someone else can  prove, that your
results are applicable to a more general case, and at  least to the accuracy 
that
you claim.

There will always be empirical design methods, so called "rules of  thumb"
for example, and these can be very valuable tools but the results from  such
methods, indeed the results from any design method, still need to be
evaluated and confirmed in practice.

In a similar fashion your measurement technique, again as with all others,
needs validation and proper analysis of its limitations before you can
truly  come to rely upon it as a stand alone tool.
It may well be "good enough" for everything you need but despite  John's
measurements, and however good his results, what you haven't  demonstrated 
so
far is the ability to evaluate those limitations so you can be  sure of 
that.
The only way at the moment that you can be really sure of  your
measurements each and every time is to have someone like John check  your 
results each
and every time.

It doesn't matter how many times your results are checked and confirmed,
and it doesn't matter that your technique might be perfect and your results
might be perfect every time, what you've demonstrated very clearly so far is
 that you just don't know whether or not that's true.

I've wondered sometimes if you're just frightened that somebody  might
prove you wrong but I don't recall anyone suggesting you're actually 
"wrong",
all I've seen is folks trying to help you and offer well meant and  useful
advice that could assist you properly evaluate the limitations of  what 
you're
proposing.
However, there must be a definite blockage somewhere because you seem  to
have gone into auto repeat mode, and for someone who claims not to have time
to produce any documentation you must have wasted hours and hours churning
out  the same old smokescreens.

Refusing to share your "recipe" so to speak, with all the bullshit  you've
come up with as to why that shouldn't be necessary, and to insult  and
attempt to belittle those who have tried to advise you, with all that  crap 
about
the "experts who just don't understand how it works" etc  etc, well, sorry
mate but that really is the mark of a true snake oil  salesman and, if
nothing else, you've certainly got that off to  perfection.

regards

Nigel
GM8PZR



 





More information about the time-nuts mailing list