On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 17:21:17 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

I said something about +/- 50% accuracy.
The linear delay calculation is off by 59%, not too far from
my 50% rough estimate.

error is growing faster than the national debt. ;-)

nowhere near the 3 nS measured
by W8JI in the standing wave environment.

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 16:39:57 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:
delay of 7.4 nS

Hmm, giving Tom the same grace of 59% reveals that the figures above,
7.4nS ±59% (4.4 - 11.77)
and
3nS ±59% (1.77 - 4.77)
overlap.

The thing about error (especially when it is in a growth mode
indicating loss of control over the experiment) is that you don't know
where within the band of possible values that the actual value
resides.

So, comparing the one to the other, making a claim that the other is
invalid, must necessarily invalidate both as they are convergent. Such
is the legacy of poor quality control.

It might be tempting to perform a Hail Mary save, by suddenly
declaring they are both right. :-)
but at 59% error, we can all agree that's a fantasy. Stretching your
tolerance for error to fit your argument can lead to any conclusion.