Le Fri, 16 Aug 2013 08:28:55 -0700, Jim Thompson a écrit:

On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 10:35:40 -0400, Martin Riddle
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 11:00:21 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

See attachment.

...Jim Thompson

I see some distortion in #2 so #3 must be "improved"

Cheers

Nope, just the opposite.

Input was 40.1kHz square wave, 0.25% off of design center. Delay
measured at zero crossing (with a Probe cursor so I could get a
numerical read-out)... 178ns (improved), 236ns (normal), 10ns time step.

"Cute" idea, but non-productive.

Larkin will now claim that whatever I did, to translate his idea to
40kHz, was not what he meant.

But he'll not ever demonstrate what he meant... at least in a fashion
that can be independently verified.

'Tis a shame that we can't actually have _critical_ discussions of
design ideas here :-(



You're doing your best to kill the will...


--
Thanks,
Fred.