Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Wanted: A Very Accurate Timer

Peter said:
In message <[email protected]>


As has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread, the short-term accuracy
of power-system frequencies is several (many?) orders of magnitude worse
than your stated requirement (they 'run slow' at times of high demand,
but are carefully made to 'catch up' at other times so that domestic
clocks, etc., don't develop cumulative gross errors).

That's why that won't work...
Your confidence that the videogame's(!) registers 'will have undergone
1,296,000 increments over the course of 6 hours' is certain to be
similarly misplaced, though if crystal-controlled perhaps only to the
extent of a few hundred increments.

I'm well aware of the drift.
This, basically, is IMO why no-one can see the point of your
accuracy-requirement - you seem to believe that you need it to 'keep in
step' with a process that is proceeding at rate only approximately-known
but from which you can't derive any synchronising-information.

No. It is only approximately known, but the "synchronising-information"
will be *visually* assessible from the monitor screen.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
.
So I came up with the idea to at the press of a button have my joystick
movements recorded and then have the option of playing the sequence back
through the joystick inputs.(It's a lot more complex than this, but
those are the basics).

THIS IS ALMOST TRIVIAL TO DO!!!!!!!!!! Why are you so impelled to continue
to be a bonehead?
I've had to put these ideas on the back burner and concentrate on
something else that requires the timer I posted about.

People keep giving you answers, and you keep rejecting them - the only
logical conclusion is that you're doing nothing but trolling.

Sorry.
Rich
 
Rich said:
THIS IS ALMOST TRIVIAL TO DO!!!!!!!!!! Why are you so impelled to continue
to be a bonehead?


People keep giving you answers, and you keep rejecting them - the only
logical conclusion is that you're doing nothing but trolling.

I'm not the one trolling here.

None of that had to do with the original question which was for a
timer. And that's all.

I've got all of the answers I could get here.

Darren Harris
Staten ISland, New York.
 
In said:
I've got all of the answers I could get here.

But have you read them? Apart from that you may not be able to interpret
them, I know you got some useful advise. I suggested you use an 120Hz
clock, so you will actually obtain the sampling resolution you want. I
have not seen you respond to that, thankful nor rejective. For me that
implies you should really find an electronics designer to work with.
 
J

James Waldby

Jan 1, 1970
0
Rich said:
THIS IS ALMOST TRIVIAL TO DO!!!!!!!!!! Why are you so impelled to
continue to be a bonehead?


People keep giving you answers, and you keep rejecting them - the only
logical conclusion is that you're doing nothing but trolling.

I think "Hanlon's Razor", ie, "Never attribute to malice that which
is adequately explained by stupidity"* is a more-logical
explanation here, if we regard trolling as malicious and think of
ignorance/boneheadity/laziness/wrongheadedness as akin to stupidity.
It seems to me that Darren Harris has rejected out of hand most
suggestions because he failed to understand them.
-jiw

* eg, http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_J._Hanlon
 
J

John Fields

Jan 1, 1970
0
But have you read them? Apart from that you may not be able to interpret
them, I know you got some useful advise. I suggested you use an 120Hz
clock, so you will actually obtain the sampling resolution you want. I
have not seen you respond to that, thankful nor rejective. For me that
implies you should really find an electronics designer to work with.

---
For me, your suggestion that he use a 120Hz clock implies that you
don't know what you're talking about.

Considering that the OP has specified that: "It must to be accurate
to within 1/60th of a second over the course of 6 hours."

means that, since there are 3600 seconds in an hour there will be
21,600 seconds in six hours, and since he wants to split the seconds
into 60 slivers each, there will be 1,296,000 slivers in six hours.

Since he states that the accuracy must be _within_ 1 sliver, that
means he needs an accuracy of one part in 1,296,000. Looking at it
from a different perspective, that's an accuracy of +/- 0.000038580%.

Now, what was it you were saying about that 120Hz clock?
 
G

Guy Macon

Jan 1, 1970
0
I'm not the one trolling here.

You certainly appear to be trolling.
None of that had to do with the original question which was for a
timer. And that's all.

Your original question was fully answered several times, as were
your followups where you kept adding details that you left out.

Please read this:

How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
I've got all of the answers I could get here.

I am no fan of the usual flamewars and topic drift here, but in
this case the fault is 100% yours. You won't get a good answer
anywhere else unless you read the above website and start following
the advice in it.

Followups set. If you don't know what that means, find out.
 
P

Peter Duck

Jan 1, 1970
0
In message <[email protected]>
For me, your suggestion that he use a 120Hz clock implies that you
don't know what you're talking about.

It seems to me a perfectly valid point, illustrating the universal
truth, hopefully familiar to anyone with an address such as yours, that
the accuracy/resolution of any measuring-instrument must be higher than
that required of the measurements to be made.
Considering that the OP has specified that: "It must to be accurate
to within 1/60th of a second over the course of 6 hours." ... means
that he needs an accuracy of one part in 1,296,000 ...
Now, what was it you were saying about that 120Hz clock?

Nothing about how its accuracy could be achieved; only, by implication,
that this should be better than 1 part in 2.6 million rather than 1.3

Non-trivial in isolation, but 'standard frequency/time' transmissions
make available to everyone within range the accuracy in which national
standards-bureaux have heavily invested: propagation-variability still
leaves the result 'better' than anything feasible to achieve otherwise.

'Radio-controlled' clocks locked to these are cheap domestic commodity
items, though for any serious application modification/additions would
be needed to produce/use an 'electronic' output instead of the normal
'visual' one. (They don't usually even have a 'stopwatch' mode, for
starters, though £8/$15 watches available here do)
This, however, would need more knowledge/skills than the OP claims.

Though still unconvinced of the relevance of such accuracy-requirement
to what little I've grasped of the clock-watching/button-pushing(!)
application, the discussion IMO remains of some academic interest, if OT
in a 'repair' NG ...
 
John said:
---
For me, your suggestion that he use a 120Hz clock implies that you
don't know what you're talking about.

Considering that the OP has specified that: "It must to be accurate
to within 1/60th of a second over the course of 6 hours."

means that, since there are 3600 seconds in an hour there will be
21,600 seconds in six hours, and since he wants to split the seconds
into 60 slivers each, there will be 1,296,000 slivers in six hours.

Since he states that the accuracy must be _within_ 1 sliver, that
means he needs an accuracy of one part in 1,296,000. Looking at it
from a different perspective, that's an accuracy of +/- 0.000038580%.

Now, what was it you were saying about that 120Hz clock?

The suggestion was faulty. That is why that post of his is now gone.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.
 
Guy said:
You certainly appear to be trolling.

Only to someone who doesn't know what trolling is.
Your original question was fully answered several times, as were
your followups where you kept adding details that you left out.

Totally incorrect. Find a single post in this thread where it was
answered completely.

And I added no details that I "left out". Those "follow ups" should not
have happened, since they were off post. But certain people kept
needling me for details.
Please read this:

How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

What for?
I am no fan of the usual flamewars and topic drift here, but in
this case the fault is 100% yours. You won't get a good answer
anywhere else unless you read the above website and start following
the advice in it.

Followups set. If you don't know what that means, find out.

I don't need to read any such website.

The topic drift here is not my fault. Would it take a genius to answer
the question in the first post without needing more details?

Evidently so.

Again, I have whatever answers I can get here. Let it go.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.
 
James said:
I think "Hanlon's Razor", ie, "Never attribute to malice that which
is adequately explained by stupidity"* is a more-logical
explanation here, if we regard trolling as malicious and think of
ignorance/boneheadity/laziness/wrongheadedness as akin to stupidity.
It seems to me that Darren Harris has rejected out of hand most
suggestions because he failed to understand them.

I rejected most suggestions because I did understand them,and they were
adequate for my needs. Only someone truly stupid would not understand
that.

Of those links that were posted, I have yet to hear back from the one
company I e-mailed. And the timers didn't have enough details or were
totally inadequate for my purposes.(Like those Ebay links you posted).

I read all the advice here and said thanks a several times throughout
the thread, and stated that I got all the info I could get here. What
else do you want from me? The crap is over details that certain
individuals are looking for. Those details are complicated and totally
off topic.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.
 
A

Asimov

Jan 1, 1970
0
"John Fields" bravely wrote to "All" (29 Jun 05 13:45:16)
--- on the heady topic of "Re: Wanted: A Very Accurate Timer"

JF> From: John Fields <[email protected]>
JF> Xref: aeinews sci.electronics.design:25987
JF> sci.electronics.repair:51922
But have you read them? Apart from that you may not be able to interpret
them, I know you got some useful advise. I suggested you use an 120Hz
clock, so you will actually obtain the sampling resolution you want. I
have not seen you respond to that, thankful nor rejective. For me that
implies you should really find an electronics designer to work with.

JF> -!-
JF> For me, your suggestion that he use a 120Hz clock implies that you
JF> don't know what you're talking about.

JF> Considering that the OP has specified that: "It must to be accurate
JF> to within 1/60th of a second over the course of 6 hours."

JF> means that, since there are 3600 seconds in an hour there will be
JF> 21,600 seconds in six hours, and since he wants to split the seconds
JF> into 60 slivers each, there will be 1,296,000 slivers in six hours.

JF> Since he states that the accuracy must be _within_ 1 sliver, that
JF> means he needs an accuracy of one part in 1,296,000. Looking at it
JF> from a different perspective, that's an accuracy of +/- 0.000038580%.

JF> Now, what was it you were saying about that 120Hz clock?


John,

IMO, his apprehended requirement seems far too demanding for the task.
The original question was simply lacking in experience but that is no
crime for a novice. He is attempting to do in hardware what is a
trivial solution in software. Anyone who has toyed with simple
computer programming must at some time come across a program example
that attempts to guess at the timing of a keypress. They may have even
come across some that learn a pattern.

A*s*i*m*o*v

.... Hardware: The parts of a computer that can be kicked
 
In sci.electronics.repair John Fields said:
Now, what was it you were saying about that 120Hz clock?

I was not presenting it as a complete solution, but as a useful part of
finding another strategy to solve the problem.
 
In said:
I read all the advice here and said thanks a several times throughout
the thread, and stated that I got all the info I could get here. What
else do you want from me? The crap is over details that certain
individuals are looking for. Those details are complicated and totally
off topic.

Problem with looking for advise or information on usenet is that you are
not the person who is in control over what others do to help you. It's
the other way around. If someone has an idea, he or she will try to help
you as good as possible. The more questions you are asked, the better.
It means people are really trying to help. In the end you will have to
evaluate all answers you get yourself. The more answers you reject, the
more dissatisfied you will be with the help you are getting. I myself
have not analysed your problem toroughly (as repair and design is a
hobby and I have more things to do for which my time is paid), but I did
try to give you some hints for other approaches that may work. That is
the kind of information you will get from the usenet. With lots of luck
you will find an out-of-the box solution here, but that is in no way
guaranteed.
 
T

Tim Shoppa

Jan 1, 1970
0
It uses registers that change every 1/60th of a
second to make certain occurances "random". If one
could react with an accuracy of 1/60th of
a second, then these occurances would
follow a predictable pattern. But
of course that kind of timing is not humanly
possible with any kind of consistency.

I'm guessing that you're trying to beat some sort of gambling/gaming
system that uses a pseudorandom sequence clocked at 60Hz. A few
off-the-wall comments:

1. You don't have to do it consistently, just enough to put the odds
in your favor. Most games are set by law to returns in the 40-48%
range. Just "hitting the button" in a 1/6 second window (sounds
feasible to me) where you know you've got a 7 or 8 out of 10 chance is
way better. You don't wait for the 1/60th of a second where you know
you win, but instead you wait for a 1/6sec window where there's a
really good chance you'll win.

2. The gaming system's clock is probably nowhere near the 1ppm
accuracy you're stating that you require. It would probably make more
sense to try to phase-lock the "guesser" to the system. This isn't
easy if there's a lot of noise and other pseudo-random uncertainties
involved, but it's not impossible.

If the gaming system is locked to AC power, then there's enough 60Hz
ripple in the light out of a fluorescent or incadescent to lock to that
easily.

I'd be very surprised if a gaming system had a 1/60 second clock, BTW.

Tim.
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
I was not presenting it as a complete solution, but as a useful part of
finding another strategy to solve the problem.

Met vriendelijke groet,

Zaadvragende Ogen! ;-P

With Friendly Greets,
Rich
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
I'm guessing that you're trying to beat some sort of gambling/gaming
system that uses a pseudorandom sequence clocked at 60Hz. A few
off-the-wall comments:

1. You don't have to do it consistently, just enough to put the odds
in your favor. Most games are set by law to returns in the 40-48%
range. Just "hitting the button" in a 1/6 second window (sounds
feasible to me) where you know you've got a 7 or 8 out of 10 chance is
way better. You don't wait for the 1/60th of a second where you know
you win, but instead you wait for a 1/6sec window where there's a
really good chance you'll win.

2. The gaming system's clock is probably nowhere near the 1ppm
accuracy you're stating that you require. It would probably make more
sense to try to phase-lock the "guesser" to the system. This isn't
easy if there's a lot of noise and other pseudo-random uncertainties
involved, but it's not impossible.

If the gaming system is locked to AC power, then there's enough 60Hz
ripple in the light out of a fluorescent or incadescent to lock to that
easily.

I'd be very surprised if a gaming system had a 1/60 second clock, BTW.

DOOOD!!!!! =:-O

He's trying to cheat the slots?!?!??? F-ck, man, I thought he
just wanted to reinvent Bazo's Breaker or something.

Speaking of screwing a casino, I'd rather deal with real feds than
casino security. Like, for example, printing out a scan of a bill,
then trying to use it in a casino changer - you wouldn't even
make it out of the building. (although, I haven't tried to pass one
to a blackjack dealer...) But the little girl at the bank teller window
will happily break it to small bills for you - or actually, the easiest
place to pass bogus bills is at the nudie bar - you flash your bogus
twenty, and ask the babe for change. Then you leave, and go to the next
nudie bar, where you rip off another bimbo $19.00.

It's almost trivial. >;->

(of course, if you're going for hundreds or thousands, then you'll
have to find your own foreign investors. I hear gun-running pays
pretty well, if you like that sort of people.)

Chears!
Rich
 
Problem with looking for advise or information on usenet is that you are
not the person who is in control over what others do to help you. It's
the other way around. If someone has an idea, he or she will try to help
you as good as possible. The more questions you are asked, the better.
It means people are really trying to help. In the end you will have to
evaluate all answers you get yourself. The more answers you reject, the
more dissatisfied you will be with the help you are getting. I myself
have not analysed your problem toroughly (as repair and design is a
hobby and I have more things to do for which my time is paid), but I did
try to give you some hints for other approaches that may work. That is
the kind of information you will get from the usenet. With lots of luck
you will find an out-of-the box solution here, but that is in no way
guaranteed.

What?!?

Was that paragraph really necessary?


The problem is the *abuse*. Being called stupid, and troll, or a
bonehead by individuals who couldn't even understand the question, let
alone come up with answers.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.
 
Tim said:
I'm guessing that you're trying to beat some sort of gambling/gaming
system that uses a pseudorandom sequence clocked at 60Hz. A few
off-the-wall comments:

1. You don't have to do it consistently, just enough to put the odds
in your favor. Most games are set by law to returns in the 40-48%
range. Just "hitting the button" in a 1/6 second window (sounds
feasible to me) where you know you've got a 7 or 8 out of 10 chance is
way better. You don't wait for the 1/60th of a second where you know
you win, but instead you wait for a 1/6sec window where there's a
really good chance you'll win.

2. The gaming system's clock is probably nowhere near the 1ppm
accuracy you're stating that you require. It would probably make more
sense to try to phase-lock the "guesser" to the system. This isn't
easy if there's a lot of noise and other pseudo-random uncertainties
involved, but it's not impossible.

If the gaming system is locked to AC power, then there's enough 60Hz
ripple in the light out of a fluorescent or incadescent to lock to that
easily.

I'd be very surprised if a gaming system had a 1/60 second clock, BTW.


Thanks.

I agree with all that. But what I'm doing has nothing to do with a
gambling system.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.
 
Top