| ??? 06/25/03 13:09 Read: times |
#49285 - RE: +/- 50nSec precise clock. Responding to: ???'s previous message |
"... this is not easy at all."
't would hardly be fun if it was ;o) Your proposed solution sounds reasonable to me; I guess I would use the same approach. You should be able to get it running properly. How far apart in time are the events to be stamped? "I don't remember you posting that link to me though !" I actually mailed you the article in pdf format as a result of this exchange we had. Rob. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| +/- 50nSec precise clock. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: +/- 50nSec precise clock. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: +/- 50nSec precise clock. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: +/- 50nSec precise clock. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: +/- 50nSec precise clock. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: +/- 50nSec precise clock. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: +/- 50nSec precise clock. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: +/- 50nSec precise clock. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: +/- 50nSec precise clock. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: +/- 50nSec precise clock. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: +/- 50nSec precise clock. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: +/- 50nSec precise clock. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: +/- 50nSec precise clock. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: +/- 50nSec precise clock. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Happy birthday, Steve | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: +/- 50nSec precise clock. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: +/- 50nSec precise clock. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: +/- 50nSec precise clock. | 01/01/70 00:00 |



