Wanted: A Very Accurate Timer

You know, you speculate, imagine, and assume way too much...

Darren Harris Staten Island, New York.

First, I should admit that my rant may have been a bit harsh. This may also have been caused by some ignorant people looking for free help on some illegal stuff (so their questions were very vague and ill defined) in another newsgroup that I read. I should have only tried to make the point the input you get is as detailed as the description of the problem. There was some suspicion your problem being not exactly as you described, so you would be looking for another solution to solve it in a proper way. I was just trying to explain the way people react to the question, I suppose.

Anyway, on topic, I'd like to explain why I stated you should be sampling at least 120 times a second if you really want to detect changes that could be occuring 60 times a second. Suppose you take a sample 60 times a second. Worst case scenario is that a change occurs immediately after your sample and a next change occurs exactly before your next sample. You've missed the entire event in that case. The second-worst case being that a change occurs immediately after your sample and you record it almost 1/60th of a second after it really occured.

You left room for that ;-) allthough I did enjoy and appreciate your explanation. Sounds like an interestig project, so good luck!