Re: Fastest counter?

Hello Don,


Ancient_Hacker wrote:
How about trying Don's idea: Put a 1/256 divider on your input.

Assuming you have 256 cycles available, your measurement error goes
down by 256 times.

I guess I don't understand what you guys mean. If my measured signal
is, say, 5000 Hz and I divide it by 256 then I get 19 plus a remainder.
Wouldn't that round-off error destroy my accuracy, or maybe I'm not
understanding what you propose?


He meant measuring it 256 times in a row and calculate the average from those 256 runs. Doesn't work for non-repetitive events though.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com
.

Quantcast