[time-nuts] crystal oscillators & TPLL

[Charles P. Steinmetz]

Steve wrote:

>I agree with what you say and really wish we could move forward
>with this. The only thing that is preventing this happening is the
>expected reaction that will occur when/if that information is ever
>released. Unfortunately the concept of constructive criticism is an
>anathema to some members of this list and this is the blockage.

I must disagree.  I suppose it's good for Warren to have an 
apologist, but you are simply not getting the facts right.  Warren 
seems to be unable to deal with constructive criticism.

What you characterize as attacks by "arrogant naysayers" (and as 
professional engineers looking down on amateur engineers) has, to my 
reading, been a fair attempt by other listmembers to understand 
Warren's TPLL implementation so that they can try to ascertain to 
what degree it is likely to provide useful results over a broader 
range of conditions than those that have been publicly 
demonstrated.  As we have asked for more details so we can try to do 
this, Warren has responded in every case -- every case -- with vague 
allusions to details of his implementation and testing he has done, 
childish accusations that nobody understands anything and we all must 
think he can't add two and two, followed by more and more outlandish 
claims about what his device does (for just one example, "the simple 
analog TPLL method holds the Phase difference [between the reference 
and test oscillators] to zero (with-in 1 femtosecond)" -- Wed, 9 Jun 
2010 21:05:57 -0700), which (i) cannot be true and (ii) appear to 
demonstrate that Warren not only has not tested at least some of the 
things that he is claiming, but seems not to understand much of the 
basic subject matter.  Warren has had more than ample opportunity to 
answer any criticism by saying calmly that he did "a" (with a decent 
explanation of what "a" is) and got "x" result, and similarly with 
"b" and "y," "c" and "z," etc., but he has not once done so.  One 
might reasonably conclude after all of the smokescreens and refusals 
that he has not, in fact, done any of the things to which he has 
vaguely alluded.

I know you have said more than once that we should just ignore "the 
femtosecond thing," but why?  (Not that anything turns on this one 
claim anyway -- there are plenty of others like it.)  You yourself 
called it into question (Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:05:26 +1200).  It is a 
claim Warren made, and very specifically -- not that a femtosecond is 
the resolution of the test method stated in units of time (which 
others have advanced to try to explain what he meant), but that his 
PLL locks two 10 MHz oscillators to within one femtosecond of each 
other and that he has verified this in several ways.  If Warren 
claims this thing (and numerous others that can easily be found in 
the voluminous record) that must be mistaken (or worse), what else 
that he has claimed can we trust?  When you read the posts and make 
the inferences that Warren's statements invite (in many cases, 
seemingly inescapably), it appears that the only trustworthy 
information we have about the operation of Warren's TPLL is what John 
published -- which indicates that the method has promise -- perhaps 
even considerable promise -- but is far from the proof Warren seems 
to think it is that his device fulfills all of his claims or has been 
characterized to the point that others can predict under what 
conditions they can rely on it.

So, please, don't make Warren out as the poor, well-meaning basement 
inventor being bashed by the "professionals."  His childish tantrums, 
insults, and outlandish claims are his and his alone.  Even if we 
assume for the sake of argument that he was hard done by (which I do 
not believe is true), that would not excuse his responses.  It would 
have been one thing to say, "Hey, I put this together and it seems to 
work pretty well" and leave it at that, but that is not what Warren did.

Best regards,

Charles