4 ms·
If you're only saw the problem at high frequency, how do you know it was it a problem at low frequency? You concluded there was less common but still fatal bit
by lonelappde 7y ago
If you're only saw the problem at high frequency, how do you know it was it a problem at low frequency? You concluded there was less common but still fatal bit errors at low frequency?
- kec 7y agoI believe he meant they changed the scale of their test equipment display to more clearly reveal high frequency noise, not that they clocked their circuit higher.
- pjc50 7y agoI read that as adjusting the timebase on the scope; at low-frequency timebase the scope smooths away the noise, but that doesn't mean the digital receiver in the circuit can't see it.
- hermitdev 7y agoYes, this was precisely the issue. We couldnt see the noise at our expected frequency of, say 1 MHz, but we could when scaled to say 50 MHz. Been nearly 2 decades now, so precise numbers elude me.