John Fields wrote:
> 
> Phil Allison wrote:
> 
> >     Idiot.
> 
> A dog smells his own farts first, yes?


   Then they run in circles chasing it. :)


-- 
Offworld checks no longer accepted!

"John Fields"
 "Phil Allison"

>>
>>> For this application an oscilloscope will be useless and you should use
>>> a frequency counter.
>>
>>
>>** Shame how even the cheapest  DSOs  have built in frequency measurement 
>>to
>>5 decimal places.
>>
>
> ---
> Shame how analog scopes, which is (since he didn't say "DSO")


 ** Pedantic bollocks.

 The OP is a novice and has no scope at present.

 A low price ( ie $300)  DSO is just what he should get.


....  Phil

"John Fields"
 "Phil Allison"

>>
>>** To get the frequency exact, you need resolution better than 1 Hz
>
> ---
> I don't think so.

 **  You don't think straight at all.

      Never have.

> If you've got a 32768 Hz crystal in an oscillator and you want to
> measure the output frequency to an accuracy of, say, +/- one part in
> 32768, then if you use a 1 second timebase to accumulate cycles it has
> to have a resolution of +/- 30.51757... µs

 **  Meaningless drivel.



..... Phil

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:41:28 +1100, "Phil Allison" <p...@tpg.com.au>
wrote:

>
>"John Fields"
> "Phil Allison"
>
>>>
>>>> For this application an oscilloscope will be useless and you should use
>>>> a frequency counter.
>>>
>>>
>>>** Shame how even the cheapest  DSOs  have built in frequency measurement 
>>>to
>>>5 decimal places.
>>>
>>
>> ---
>> Shame how analog scopes, which is (since he didn't say "DSO")
>
>
> ** Pedantic bollocks.
>
> The OP is a novice and has no scope at present.
>
> A low price ( ie $300)  DSO is just what he should get.

---
Got any suggestions as to which one?

JF 

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:44:14 +1100, "Phil Allison" <p...@tpg.com.au>
wrote:

>
>"John Fields"
> "Phil Allison"
>
>>>
>>>** To get the frequency exact, you need resolution better than 1 Hz
>>
>> ---
>> I don't think so.
>
> **  You don't think straight at all.
>
>      Never have.

---
Just because you don't recognize it as straight thinking doesn't mean it
isn't.

For example, if you think that the '8' in 32768 Hz represents 1 Hz, as
you seem to indicate, I suggest you consider that it represents 1 part
in 32768 Hz, which is ~ 30.5µs, not 1s/1Hz.
--- 

>> If you've got a 32768 Hz crystal in an oscillator and you want to
>> measure the output frequency to an accuracy of, say, +/- one part in
>> 32768, then if you use a 1 second timebase to accumulate cycles it has
>> to have a resolution of +/- 30.51757... µs
>
> **  Meaningless drivel.

---
How would you state it then?

JF 

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:25:28 -0600, John Fields
<j...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

>For this application an oscilloscope will be useless and you should use
>a frequency counter.

Thank you very much got your very detailed suggestions, I will look
for a frequency counter and try as you said.

-- 
Thanks again
ClueLess

"ClueLess"
 John Fields

>
>>For this application an oscilloscope will be useless and you should use
>>a frequency counter.
>
> Thank you very much got your very detailed suggestions, I will look
> for a frequency counter and try as you said.


 ** Don't do that.

That advice is crap and will not work.

Get a scope with two traces.

But first tell  US what sort of accuracy you  NEED  and why !!



.....  Phil

"John Fields"
 "Phil Allison"

>>
>>>>** To get the frequency exact, you need resolution better than 1 Hz
>>>
>>> I don't think so.
>>
>> **  You don't think straight at all.
>>
>>      Never have.
>
> Just because you don't recognize it as straight thinking doesn't mean it
> isn't.

 ** Fraid it is just more of your crazed, autistic crapology.


> For example, if you think that the '8' in 32768 Hz represents 1 Hz, as
> you seem to indicate, I suggest you consider that it represents 1 part
> in 32768 Hz, which is ~ 30.5µs, not 1s/1Hz.


** Fraid it is just more of your crazed, autistic crapology.



......  Phil

On Dec 17, 6:01=A0pm, ClueLess <cluel...@wilderness.org.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:25:28 -0600, John Fields
>
> <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
> >For this application an oscilloscope will be useless and you should use
> >a frequency counter.
>
> Thank you very much got your very detailed suggestions, I will look
> for a frequency counter and try as you said.

Er... no, that's not right.  If you have a suitable reference
frequency source, you can watch the pretty Lissajous figure
on an X/Y oscilloscope (no dual channel, no counter) and if
it goes through a cycle in 100 seconds, with 0.1 second
stopwatch accuracy, you've just made a frequency
measurement with .001 Hz accuracy.   For your
32 kHz crystal, that's a second per year kind of accuracy.

A frequency counter is a convenient and quick solution, but
it is NOT required nor is it superior in accuracy.

"whit3rd"
 ClueLess
 John Fields

> >For this application an oscilloscope will be useless and you
> > should use a frequency counter.
>
> Thank you very much got your very detailed suggestions, I will
> look for a frequency counter and try as you said.

Er... no, that's not right.  If you have a suitable reference
frequency source, you can watch the pretty Lissajous figure
on an X/Y oscilloscope (no dual channel, no counter) and if
it goes through a cycle in 100 seconds, with 0.1 second
stopwatch accuracy, you've just made a frequency
measurement with .001 Hz accuracy.   For your
32 kHz crystal, that's a second per year kind of accuracy.

A frequency counter is a convenient and quick solution, but
it is NOT required nor is it superior in accuracy.

** Ask JF where the OP can get an affordable counter that
reads a frequency in Hz to seven decimal places - as in his
 " 32768.XXXXXXX Hz  ".

His magic 10 turn crystal PU loop need to be patented too.


......  Phil