Chronology |
Current Month |
Current Thread |
Current Date |

[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |

*From*: John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>*Date*: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 17:12:01 -0700

Hi --

A couple of hours ago I pushed a new version of the spindown

spreadsheet:

https://www.av8n.com/physics/spindown.gnumeric

https://www.av8n.com/physics/spindown.xls

The most interesting thing is a new diagram:

https://www.av8n.com/physics/img48/spindown-omega-z1.png

which is zoomed-in enough to show the stair-steps associated

with the excessive roundoff error. The actual noise in the

sensor is /at least/ one order of magnitude smaller than the

roundoff error. This is the hallmark of a badly-designed

apparatus.

Also there are some lagged-residual plots, which also show

the effect of roundoff. Perhaps the most interesting of

these is:

https://www.av8n.com/physics/img48/spindown-lagged-omega.png

In addition to the 20-per-second data analyzed previously, I

carried out the same sort of analysis for the 100-per-second

data. The diagrams for the latter are in the spreadsheet file

only; I didn't save them as separate .png files.

More finely-spaced t values are a step in the right direction,

but 100 per second does not solve the fundamental problem. Not

even close. The important concept is, we don't necessarily need

more points; what we urgently need is two or three more orders

of magnitude more resolution on the timestamps on the points

we already have.

More resolution is synonymous with less roundoff error.

**References**:**[Phys-L] Timing Statistic***From:*Paul Nord <Paul.Nord@valpo.edu>

**Re: [Phys-L] Timing Statistic***From:*John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>

**Re: [Phys-L] Timing Statistic***From:*John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>

**Re: [Phys-L] Timing Statistic***From:*Paul Nord <Paul.Nord@valpo.edu>

**Re: [Phys-L] Timing Statistic***From:*John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>

**Re: [Phys-L] Timing Statistic***From:*Paul Nord <Paul.Nord@valpo.edu>

**Re: [Phys-L] Timing Statistic***From:*John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: [Phys-L] Timing Statistic** - Next by Date:
**[Phys-L] Snopes cheques alien object.** - Previous by thread:
**Re: [Phys-L] Timing Statistic** - Next by thread:
**[Phys-L] timestamps ... related to Timing Statistic** - Index(es):