search

FDSN / OBS-standards

A repository for the discussion an development for Ocean Bottom Seismology standards
2 stars 0 forks source link

If/how to specify time base nominal drift (or precision) #20

Open WayneCrawford opened 3 weeks ago

WayneCrawford commented 3 weeks ago

Currently, the field drift:time_base is open text, and the example in standards.md contains both the Model and the "nominal drift", which Wayne probably copied from the documentation. Questions include:

@KAderhold was afraid that, without some verification by the user, the value communicated by the manufacturer could be false @JCollins considers that using the manufacturer's value is not a problem and gives a reference for whether the actual observed drift can be considered "within spec" or not

jac5796 commented 3 weeks ago

Yes, if we name the clock, then it is useful to quote the expected drift rate. I would be happy with leaving the specification “in the time_base field”. No requirement to add a value. I suggest using the term “Drift Rate”, and specify as either 2 x 10^-8 or 20 PPB (parts per billion).

        J

John A. Collins Dept. of Geology and Geophysics, MS 24 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 360 Woods Hole Road Woods Hole, MA 02543

e-mail: @.*** voice: +1-508-289-2733

On Jul 10, 2024, at 13:36, Wayne Crawford @.***> wrote:

Currently, the field drift:time_base is open text, and the example in standards.md <x-msg://41/doc/standards.md> contains both the Model and the "nominal drift", which Wayne probably copied from the documentation. Questions include:

Should we include "nominal drift" information? If so would it be better named "precision" (or "nominal precision")? should it be left in the time_base field (no standard for whether to put it there or not, but also no strict requirement for verification) or in a separate field (nominal_precision?, nominal_drift)? @KAderhold was afraid that, without some verification by the user, the value communicated by the manufacturer could be false @jcollins https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fjcollins&data=05%7C02%7Cjcollins%40whoi.edu%7C26e0a09d66ed4453035f08dca106e7af%7Cd44c5cc6d18c46cc8abd4fdf5b6e5944%7C0%7C0%7C638562298241888136%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=DNtANYIEyM1D6QmRlL3fbU5dUfzQr%2B9tdGpv2hqKwas%3D&reserved=0 considers that using the manufacturer's value is not a problem and gives a reference for whether the actual observed drift can be considered "within spec" or not

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FFDSN%2FOBS-standards%2Fissues%2F20&data=05%7C02%7Cjcollins%40whoi.edu%7C26e0a09d66ed4453035f08dca106e7af%7Cd44c5cc6d18c46cc8abd4fdf5b6e5944%7C0%7C0%7C638562298241897908%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=M8jnqwJ1wIKdrGVyEa%2Ffyo3D5lqIsR6gCUoBwdcE72M%3D&reserved=0, or unsubscribe https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fnotifications%2Funsubscribe-auth%2FACEP437TXAZV3DTIQPOPDZDZLVWLXAVCNFSM6AAAAABKVMA3VOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSGQYDCMZSGM3DCMA&data=05%7C02%7Cjcollins%40whoi.edu%7C26e0a09d66ed4453035f08dca106e7af%7Cd44c5cc6d18c46cc8abd4fdf5b6e5944%7C0%7C0%7C638562298241905082%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=so%2FnFJwSNf%2F3gjksikRas6ZTtV0uuZgD2YGdgGEOSrE%3D&reserved=0. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.