Wanted: A Very Accurate Timer

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

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.

Sorry. Rich

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.

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.

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,
  formatting link

--- 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

You certainly appear to be trolling.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Darren Harris Staten Island, New York.

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

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.

What for?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Zaadvragende Ogen! ;-P

With Friendly Greets, Rich

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

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

--
Met vriendelijke groet,

   Maarten Bakker.

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.

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.