AVR-Chat

At 06:51 PM 7/15/04 +0000, you wrote:
>--- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, Robert Adsett <subscriptions@a...>
>wrote:
> > At 08:32 AM 7/15/04 -0400, you wrote:
> > >I didn't read all the thread on this but somewhere I saw someone
>talking
> > >about 100%. If you only log the time when a certain amount of
>change is is
> > >make you should know ahead how many readings you will have logged.
> >
> > That assumption is valid for monotonically changing systems.  Since
>we
> > talking about daylight over a period of a week the signal is
>certainly not
> > monotonic (well on most of the globe).
>
>
>This idea has some valid points.
>soil temperature and soil moisture will be very slow change variables
>so even with a time stamp, it would be a valid concept.

Actually no, the idea as stated was that the signal started at one value 
and went in a monotonic fashion to another (no up and downs) and therefor 
the total number of samples could be computed in advance even if the time 
span is not known.  True, but it doesn't work for your inputs.

The extension suggested (basically a difference encoding) would work for 
some of your inputs, but not for light (At least not without further 
restrictions on the setup to restrict the variability of the light).

>as for light, this brings up an interesting study and probably one
>that will gain students interests and that is comparing the growth
>rate of identical plants in varying conditions.
>
>Will a tomato plant for instance, grow faster with 4 hours of direct
>sun or with 8 hours of the the same total light intensity ?

More interestingly what effect is there if the 4 hours is distributed in 
say 5 minute segments (ie 5 on 5 off)?  Is that any different from 4 
on/4off at 8 at 50%.


" 'Freedom' has no meaning of itself.  There are always restrictions,
be they legal, genetic, or physical.  If you don't believe me, try to
chew a radio signal. "

                         Kelvin Throop, III