On 27 Jun 2005 10:09:50 -0700 wrote:

The problem is getting a timer.

You've said that you just want a timer that will run over a period of
six hours with 1/60 sec accuracy.

You've said that all you want is a simple clock display that reads out
seconds.

You've said that it needs to just start at an arbitrary start time and
count from there.

None of these goals is particularly hard, but to get that accuracy
you'll need to buy some sort of commercial clock with a time display
and mate it to a frequency source (which in this industry is also
commonly called a "clock", further confusing this question) that is
more accurate than such timers usually come with. Or, if you have real
money to spend you can buy something with a real frequency standard
(clock) inside which could be purchased with a digital clock display.
The price for something like this could be anything from $2500 to
$40,000. This whole range is much more accurate than you've asked for,
but it seems unlikely that anyone makes something that meets just your
minimum accuracy requirement.

The problem that I see is that you've not asked for any kind of
electronic input or output for the timer, which makes most of us
wonder how you expect to be able to use 1/60 sec accuracy while just
doing this by eye.

If you're planning to use electronic start and stop signals, then you
can get much better accuracy than 1/60 sec.

So this leaves us confused about what it is that you really want/need.
It's not that people here are trying to be difficult; it's that they
are trying to be helpful, but the specs of your request, taken as a
whole, just don't seem to make sense.

So if you explained a little more, without giving away any of your
secrets, then you will probably get the answer you're after.

-
-----------------------------------------------
Jim Adney
Madison, WI 53711 USA
-----------------------------------------------

wrote:
And I think it has already been established that the kind of accurate
timer I need doesn't exist(or no one here knows of one).

http://www.google.com/search?q=1%2F100+second+timer

#2 on the list...
http://www.meylan.com/1_100sec.html
12 models with 1/100 displays and up to 100 hours. Whether they're
really 99.99992%+ accurate is for you to determine.

Now, these were very easy to find. They meet your limited "simple"
specs. Seiko is a name brand in sports timing, and the printer model
has it all.

I'll politely assume that surely you searched Google first, found these,
and determined they were inadequate by merely looking at them. So, what
makes these unsuitable?

Richard

Richard H. wrote:
wrote:
And I think it has already been established that the kind of accurate
timer I need doesn't exist(or no one here knows of one).

http://www.google.com/search?q=1%2F100+second+timer

#2 on the list...
http://www.meylan.com/1_100sec.html
12 models with 1/100 displays and up to 100 hours. Whether they're
really 99.99992%+ accurate is for you to determine.

Now, these were very easy to find. They meet your limited "simple"
specs. Seiko is a name brand in sports timing, and the printer model
has it all.

I'll politely assume that surely you searched Google first, found these,
and determined they were inadequate by merely looking at them. So, what
makes these unsuitable?


Well, you have already hinted at it your self.

What are the odds that a stand alone stopwatch will be anything close
to 1/60th of a second of the correct time at the 6 hour mark?

And we all know that 1/100th of a second on a hand held stopwatch is
nothing but a marketing gimic. :-)

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

Richard H. wrote:
wrote:
And I think it has already been established that the kind of accurate
timer I need doesn't exist(or no one here knows of one).

http://www.google.com/search?q=1%2F100+second+timer

#2 on the list...
http://www.meylan.com/1_100sec.html
12 models with 1/100 displays and up to 100 hours. Whether they're
really 99.99992%+ accurate is for you to determine.

Now, these were very easy to find. They meet your limited "simple"
specs. Seiko is a name brand in sports timing, and the printer model
has it all.

I'll politely assume that surely you searched Google first, found these,
and determined they were inadequate by merely looking at them. So, what
makes these unsuitable?

Well, you have already hinted at it your self.

What are the odds that a stand alone stopwatch will be anything close
to 1/60th of a second of the correct time at the 6 hour mark?


And we all know that 1/100th of a second on a hand held stopwatch is
nothing but a marketing gimic. :-)


Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

Richard H. wrote:
wrote:
And I think it has already been established that the kind of accurate
timer I need doesn't exist(or no one here knows of one).

http://www.google.com/search?q=1%2F100+second+timer

#2 on the list...
http://www.meylan.com/1_100sec.html
12 models with 1/100 displays and up to 100 hours. Whether they're
really 99.99992%+ accurate is for you to determine.

Now, these were very easy to find. They meet your limited "simple"
specs. Seiko is a name brand in sports timing, and the printer model
has it all.

I'll politely assume that surely you searched Google first, found these,
and determined they were inadequate by merely looking at them. So, what
makes these unsuitable?

Well, you have already hinted at it yourself.

What are the odds that a stand alone stopwatch will be anything close
to 1/60th of a second of the correct time at the 6 hour mark?


And we all know that 1/100th of a second on a hand held stopwatch is
nothing but a marketing gimic. :-)


Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

Jim Adney wrote:
On 27 Jun 2005 10:09:50 -0700 wrote:

The problem is getting a timer.

You've said that you just want a timer that will run over a period of
six hours with 1/60 sec accuracy.

You've said that all you want is a simple clock display that reads out
seconds.

You've said that it needs to just start at an arbitrary start time and
count from there.

Yup.

None of these goals is particularly hard, but to get that accuracy
you'll need to buy some sort of commercial clock with a time display
and mate it to a frequency source (which in this industry is also
commonly called a "clock", further confusing this question) that is
more accurate than such timers usually come with. Or, if you have real
money to spend you can buy something with a real frequency standard
(clock) inside which could be purchased with a digital clock display.
The price for something like this could be anything from $2500 to
$40,000. This whole range is much more accurate than you've asked for,
but it seems unlikely that anyone makes something that meets just your
minimum accuracy requirement.

So it seems. :-)

The problem that I see is that you've not asked for any kind of
electronic input or output for the timer, which makes most of us
wonder how you expect to be able to use 1/60 sec accuracy while just
doing this by eye.

Let me repost something I wrote earlier in this thread:

"It is way too complicated to go into the details as far as why I need
this, but basically this will involve conducting experiments/tests on
the accuracy of human timing, and also the confirmation of certain
conclusions drawn from studying the code contained within the hardware
I'll be testing against."

"1/60th of a second is important because it is specific to that
hardware
and how it functions. 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."

If you're planning to use electronic start and stop signals, then you
can get much better accuracy than 1/60 sec.

Again, this involves "human timing".

So this leaves us confused about what it is that you really want/need.
It's not that people here are trying to be difficult; it's that they
are trying to be helpful, but the specs of your request, taken as a
whole, just don't seem to make sense.

I covered everything pertinent in my posts, and have no idea what else
I can say(that doesn't throw everyone further into a state of
cconfusion).

So if you explained a little more, without giving away any of your
secrets, then you will probably get the answer you're after.

There are no "secrets".

This is actually much simpler than the original project which involves
more than just a timer, but the ability to record the time of each of
four (joystick)input activations/deactivations, which could number over
300 over the course of between 2 and 3 minutes. And then play them back
the same way.(Thereby replicating my moves with that 1/60th of a second
accuracy). But since I am having such difficulty with this, the
original needs are definitely out of the question anytime soon.

I thought that there might be an affordable timer that would somehow
keep it's accuracy by via 60Hertz AC. But I guess not.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

Ian Stirling wrote:
In sci.electronics.design wrote:
Can I get recomendations for the most accurate electronic timer that I
can buy?

It must to be accurate to within 1/60th of a second over the course of
6 hours.

Is something like this commercially available, or will I have to build
it, or have someone build it?

GPS recievers.
I've seen some with an alarm function.
However, 1/60th of a second in 6 hours isn't impossible to do otherwise.

In sci.electronics.repair Jim Adney wrote:
None of these goals is particularly hard, but to get that accuracy
you'll need to buy some sort of commercial clock with a time display
and mate it to a frequency source (which in this industry is also
commonly called a "clock", further confusing this question) that is
more accurate than such timers usually come with. Or, if you have real
money to spend you can buy something with a real frequency standard
(clock) inside which could be purchased with a digital clock display.
The price for something like this could be anything from $2500 to
$40,000. This whole range is much more accurate than you've asked for,
but it seems unlikely that anyone makes something that meets just your
minimum accuracy requirement.

As said before, the power company has something almost up to that
standard, but that idea was probably also rejected in earlier
discussion here?

---
Met vriendelijke groet,

Maarten Bakker.

In sci.electronics.design wrote:
snip
Well, you have already hinted at it yourself.

What are the odds that a stand alone stopwatch will be anything close
to 1/60th of a second of the correct time at the 6 hour mark?


And we all know that 1/100th of a second on a hand held stopwatch is
nothing but a marketing gimic. :-)


Google
GPS stopwatch
Job done.

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:06:02 -0700, Searcher7 wrote:
[and seems to have snipped all attribution]
Now if this is so difficult to understand, then the more complex timer
will be near impossible to explain.

Perhaps your problem is that you don't know what you are doing.
Feel free to convince us otherwise.

The problem is the criticizing of my needs and the suggestion of
alternatives by those unfamiliar with the project. The initial question
was simple, and I thank those who gave me their best answers.

We are "unfamiliar with the project" because you haven't _told_ us
anything about the project. You've made some obscure reference to
video games;

What do you need to time?

What are you trying to accomplish?

Yeah, the question was simple. "I need to time an interval to an
accuracy of 1/60 second, over a span of possibly 6 hours."

People who have many years' experience have informed you of almost
a half-dozen ways to accomplish this, but apparently they're
unsatisfactory.

And newbies wonder why us crusty old farts get annoyed at newbies.

Get to the f---ing point, rather than bitching about the suggestions
that have been offered based on nothing more than the above, with
a dollop of mind reading thrown in. In Other Words, What Are You
Trying To Accomplish?

Thanks,
Rich

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 13:31:37 -0500, John Fields wrote:

On 27 Jun 2005 10:09:50 -0700, wrote:

The problem is getting a timer.

---
I can build exactly what you want. Email me if you're interested with
how much you're prepared to spend to get it.

Me Too!

;-)
Rich
BTW, the email is richardgrise at yahoo dot com, but elide ard.

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 23:00:46 -0700, Searcher7 wrote:

This is actually much simpler than the original project which involves
more than just a timer, but the ability to record the time of each of
four (joystick)input activations/deactivations, which could number over
300 over the course of between 2 and 3 minutes. And then play them back
the same way.(Thereby replicating my moves with that 1/60th of a second
accuracy). But since I am having such difficulty with this, the
original needs are definitely out of the question anytime soon.

Well, Jesus Aitch! Why didn't you just say so? There's probably a
dozen people here who could design a joystick tracker with millisecond
accuracy, and record switch closures to microsecond tolerances. I'd
lighten up a bit on looking for a coincidence detector, which is not
going to happen unless you can physically hack the game you're trying
to hack.

If you're looking at reaction time stuff, then you'll have to find
a biology or anatomy group, although I'd still venture to guess that
most people who are conversant with this level of electronics
probably know something about nerve impulse propagation and
electromyelographic interfaces. Heck, a year or so ago, I was being
tested for neuropathy, and they taped some electrodes that look
very much like EKG or EEG electrodes to my legs, and the nurse (or
lady doctor - we didn't get into that) took a hand-held that looked
so much like a stun gun that when I said, "Stun Gun???" she said,
"That's what everybody says." They stunned me, and they took
readings of my neural response. Diagnosis: Alcoholic Neuropathy.

Oh, well.

You might also look into the source code for "MAME" - Multiple
Arcade Machine Emulator. I play Mr. Do! and Bubble Bobble regularly,
and am considering something much like your project, to see how the
software uses joystick/button actions to modify its own algorithm!

Good Luck!
Rich

In sci.electronics.repair wrote:
I said in my very first post that I was looking for an electronic timer
that is accurate to within 1/60th of a second over the course of 6
hours. Then the thread turned into questions concerning my project and
assumptions as to why what I ask for wasn't logical.

I think for you to measure an event with an accuracy of 1/60th of a
second, you need to take measurements at least 120 times a second (well
known theorem, I forgot the name).

---
Met vriendelijke groet,

Maarten Bakker.

wrote:
In sci.electronics.repair wrote:

I said in my very first post that I was looking for an electronic timer
that is accurate to within 1/60th of a second over the course of 6
hours. Then the thread turned into questions concerning my project and
assumptions as to why what I ask for wasn't logical.


I think for you to measure an event with an accuracy of 1/60th of a
second, you need to take measurements at least 120 times a second (well
known theorem, I forgot the name).

That would be Shannon.

In article ,
says...
wrote:
In sci.electronics.repair wrote:

I said in my very first post that I was looking for an electronic timer
that is accurate to within 1/60th of a second over the course of 6
hours. Then the thread turned into questions concerning my project and
assumptions as to why what I ask for wasn't logical.


I think for you to measure an event with an accuracy of 1/60th of a
second, you need to take measurements at least 120 times a second (well
known theorem, I forgot the name).

That would be Shannon.

No, that would by Nyquist. Shannon limits the data rate, based on
bandwidth and S/N ratio.

--
Keith

wrote in message
l...
In sci.electronics.repair wrote:
I said in my very first post that I was looking for an electronic timer
that is accurate to within 1/60th of a second over the course of 6
hours. Then the thread turned into questions concerning my project and
assumptions as to why what I ask for wasn't logical.

I think for you to measure an event with an accuracy of 1/60th of a
second, you need to take measurements at least 120 times a second (well
known theorem, I forgot the name).

Nyquist.

In message .com
wrote:

... I thought that there might be an affordable timer that would somehow
keep it's accuracy by via 60Hertz AC. But I guess not.

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).

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.

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.

--
Peter Duck

I suggested that your approach (precision rather than accuracy) might be a
better way to go, but the guy rejects this idea, but I agree it is a better shot

David
James Waldby wrote:


Note that the clock in the video game almost certainly will drift
around in a range at least 10 parts per million wide, which makes
your 1 ppm requirement superfluous. Instead, snoop the video game
clock and use a buffered copy of it to drive the counters in your timer.
This way your displayed time always is in sync with the video game time.

Rich Grise wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 23:00:46 -0700, Searcher7 wrote:

This is actually much simpler than the original project which involves
more than just a timer, but the ability to record the time of each of
four (joystick)input activations/deactivations, which could number over
300 over the course of between 2 and 3 minutes. And then play them back
the same way.(Thereby replicating my moves with that 1/60th of a second
accuracy). But since I am having such difficulty with this, the
original needs are definitely out of the question anytime soon.

Well, Jesus Aitch! Why didn't you just say so? There's probably a
dozen people here who could design a joystick tracker with millisecond
accuracy, and record switch closures to microsecond tolerances. I'd
lighten up a bit on looking for a coincidence detector, which is not
going to happen unless you can physically hack the game you're trying
to hack.

As I mentioned, I can't hack into the gameboard. This has to be a
separate device. And this project is on the back burner anyway, since
it is more complex than just the timer I am seeking for now.

If you're looking at reaction time stuff, then you'll have to find
a biology or anatomy group, although I'd still venture to guess that
most people who are conversant with this level of electronics
probably know something about nerve impulse propagation and
electromyelographic interfaces. Heck, a year or so ago, I was being
tested for neuropathy, and they taped some electrodes that look
very much like EKG or EEG electrodes to my legs, and the nurse (or
lady doctor - we didn't get into that) took a hand-held that looked
so much like a stun gun that when I said, "Stun Gun???" she said,
"That's what everybody says." They stunned me, and they took
readings of my neural response. Diagnosis: Alcoholic Neuropathy.

Oh, well.

You might also look into the source code for "MAME" - Multiple
Arcade Machine Emulator. I play Mr. Do! and Bubble Bobble regularly,
and am considering something much like your project, to see how the
software uses joystick/button actions to modify its own algorithm!

MAME is not an option, because the original hardware must be used.

The original project involved a "Automatic Pattern Generator". People
develop patterns to clear the mazes in the game Pac-man. I wanted to
have a computer develop patterns through trial and error, but that
would entail hacking into the game board.

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).

I've had to put these ideas on the back burner and concentrate on
something else that requires the timer I posted about.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

Peter Duck wrote:
In message .com
wrote:

... I thought that there might be an affordable timer that would somehow
keep it's accuracy by via 60Hertz AC. But I guess not.

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.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:35:26 -0700, Searcher7 wrote:
....
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 Grise wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:35:26 -0700, Searcher7 wrote:
...
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.

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 sci.electronics.repair wrote:
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.

---
Met vriendelijke groet,

Maarten Bakker.

Rich Grise wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:35:26 -0700, Searcher7 wrote:
...
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.

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

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 19:53:49 +0200, wrote:

In sci.electronics.repair wrote:
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.

---
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?

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

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.

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.

In message
John Fields wrote:

... I suggested you use an 120Hz clock, so you will actually obtain
the sampling resolution you want...

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 ...

--
Peter Duck

John Fields wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 19:53:49 +0200, wrote:

In sci.electronics.repair wrote:
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.

---
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 Macon wrote:
wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

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.

You certainly appear to be trolling.

Only to someone who doesn't know what trolling is.

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.

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'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.

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 Waldby wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:35:26 -0700, Searcher7 wrote:
...
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.

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.

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

JF From: John Fields
JF Xref: aeinews sci.electronics.design:25987
JF sci.electronics.repair:51922
JF On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 19:53:49 +0200, wrote:

In sci.electronics.repair wrote:
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.

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

.... Hardwa The parts of a computer that can be kicked

In sci.electronics.repair John Fields wrote:
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.

---
Met vriendelijke groet,

Maarten Bakker.

In sci.electronics.repair wrote:
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.

---
Met vriendelijke groet,

Maarten Bakker.

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.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:12:57 +0200, maarten wrote:
In sci.electronics.repair John Fields wrote:

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.

Met vriendelijke groet,

Zaadvragende Ogen! ;-P

With Friendly Greets,
Rich

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 05:07:38 -0700, Tim Shoppa wrote:

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.

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

In sci.electronics.repair Rich Grise wrote:
Zaadvragende Ogen! ;-P

Next time, say that to a girl... Or better yet, about a girl behind her
back ;-)

---
Met vriendelijke groet,

Maarten Bakker.

wrote:
In sci.electronics.repair wrote:
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.

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 Shoppa wrote:
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.


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.

Rich Grise wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 05:07:38 -0700, Tim Shoppa wrote:

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.

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.)

You seem to know quite a bit about this stuff.

Personal experience perhaps? :-)

Sigh...

OK. Here we go.

There are 3 or 4 gamers in the U.S. who have confirmed ability to play
the classic game Ms.Pac-man all the way to the end(133 mazes), while
consuming *all* of the bonus prizes and monsters along the way.

The problem is that our highest scores vary by as much as 100,000
points. So the scores cannot really be a determining factor as far as
who the best in the world is at this game, because we have all
accomplished the same thing. We cannot go further thanks to the game's
end.

Our varying high scores are attributed to the "random" aspects of the
game. There are 252 "random" bonus prizes in a complete game, and these
prizes vary in value from 100 points(Cherry) to 5,000 points(Bananna).
From what I'm told, the Ms.Pac-man programming code shows that the
register that determines which bonus prizes appear at any given time
incriments 60 times a second. So in 7/60th of a second it will
incriment through all 7 bonus prizes before beginning again. And the
last joystick input before the dot that triggers the prize output is
eaten is responsible for which prize appears. Now if a player could
determine the exact 1/60th of a second a number corresponding to the
5,000 point prize would be the selection *and* had the timing to
activate the correct joystick input at that exact 60th of a second,
that player would be able to make nothing but Banannas appear
throughout the whole game. But of course this is not humanly possible.
So basically the game uses human inconsistency to randomize the prize
output.

There is however an anomaly in the odds. Each of the 7 bonus prizes *do
not* have a 1 in 7 chance of appearing because of the way the
Ms.Pac-man programming code was written.(See below)...

Cherry 0 7 14 21 28
Strawberry 1 8 15 22 29
Orange 2 9 16 23 30
Pretzel 3 10 17 24 31
Apple 4 11 18 25
Pear 5 12 19 26
Banana 6 13 20 27

The register runs through all 32 incriments in just over half a second.
As you can see, all prizes have corresponding numbers. The sequence
goes from 0 to 31, and continually repeats without a pause, skip, or
reset from the time the game is powered on to when it is powered off.

***Unfortunately, the high bonus prizes(Apple, Pear, & Bananna) are
shortchanged in that last line. So as a result the average complete
game score is 874,342.5 points instead of the 905,280 points that it
would be if the odds were in fact 1 in 7 for each prize. The *actual*
odds of getting each prize is shown as fractions and percents he

Odds of Appearance
******************
Cherry 100 points = 5/32 = 15.625%
Strawberry 200 points = 5/32 = 15.625%
Orange 500 points = 5/32 = 15.625%
Pretzel 700 points = 5/32 = 15.625%
Apple 1,000 points = 4/32 = 12.5%
Pear 2,000 points = 4/32 = 12.5%
Banana 5,000 points = 4/32 = 12.5%

As I mentioned consistently reacting within 1/60th of a second is not
possible, but 1/20th of a second can be achieved with *relative*
consistency, which should be enough to shift the scoring odds ever so
slightly. I say 1/20th because the numbers representing the high value
prizes(Apple, Pear, and Bananna) run through the register within that
amount of time. Determining the exact instant this happens will be
possible through a series of visually references. Since each maze
produces two prizes, and the speeds of game's character movements are
consistent throughout the game. And since we have and can create maze
patterns that run from before the appearance of the first prize to
after the appearance of the second, the exact time the first prize
appears, what it is,and possibly it's travel pattern will make it the
reference for determining what adjustment/s will have to be made before
the second prize appears.

***So the last joystick movement before the dot that triggers the
second prize will be the key.

Since our maze patterns have a lot of pauses, the possibility of
resuming motion at the exact same time a particular second on the
display clicks over is doable with some accuracy above and beyond
rolling the dice.(It's a matter of how many times we can hit this high
speed window over the course of a 5 or 6 hour game).

Even a 25% accuracy of hitting that 1/20th of a second window will add
an average of over 45,000 points to one's scores, with a large
deviation either way.(This is rough math). This would greatly increase
the probability of moving the world record up on the game.

Also, another idea involves aiming for the larger 27/60th of a second
window that the prizes do have an equal chance of occurring, thereby
effectively cutting out the register numbers of 28 to 31. This of
course would be much easier to do, and automatically adds about 31,000
points to one's average score.

As far as drift in the game's hardware timimg, this has already been
considered. But still adjustments can be made by noting the first
specific prize, and then making adjustments for the second prize.

The bottom line is that there will be a lot of human error as far as
timing is concerned, but the player with the *least* amount of errors
should have a higher scoring average over time.

***So it is logical to want to minimize the inconsistency of whatever
timing device is used for reference as much as possible. A second on
the display that doesn't click over accurately within 1/60th of a
second will add it's deviation to that of the human errors which will
already be plentiful. So obviously, the more accuarte the timer is, the
better.

Now that was the dumbed-down explanation of my already twice simplified
project.(I'll have to work my way back to the automatic pattern
generator in the future).

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.