Re: Problems with GLONASS Raw Receiver Data at Start of New Year

2006-01-17 Thread Steve Allen
On Tue 2006-01-17T18:26:49 +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ: > As far as I recall GLONASS was messed up for hours on the previous > leapsecond, so there is a good chance it is because of the leap > seconds that it fell out this time. Not according to the Russians: http://www.glonass-center.ru/1

Re: Problems with GLONASS Raw Receiver Data at Start of New Year

2006-01-17 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Seaman writes: >On Jan 14, 2006, at 8:59 AM, Richard Langley wrote: > >> The problem existed for only 2-1/2 minutes, not hours. > >Thanks for the clarification. > >> Might be coincidental with the leap second but I've not noticed >> this problem at other times. >

Re: Problems with GLONASS Raw Receiver Data at Start of New Year

2006-01-15 Thread John Cowan
Rob Seaman scripsit: > I haven't been able to decipher what the humor is meant to be here - > will gladly admit that this is likely a failure on my part. I won't > ask you to explain the joke, but rather I suspect you had a more > basic point you were seeking to make. Is there some reason that >

Re: Problems with GLONASS Raw Receiver Data at Start of New Year

2006-01-15 Thread Rob Seaman
On Jan 14, 2006, at 8:59 AM, Richard Langley wrote: The problem existed for only 2-1/2 minutes, not hours. Thanks for the clarification. Might be coincidental with the leap second but I've not noticed this problem at other times. Would be a significant coincidence. Any simple explanation

Re: Problems with GLONASS Raw Receiver Data at Start of New Year

2006-01-14 Thread Rob Seaman
On Jan 14, 2006, at 11:20 AM, John Cowan wrote: I'd expect to see a wave of breakage as DUT1 exceeded 0.9s for the first time, and a second wave as it exceeded 1s for the first time. After that, of course, the problems would no longer be relevant. :-) I haven't been able to decipher what the

Re: Problems with GLONASS Raw Receiver Data at Start of New Year

2006-01-14 Thread John Cowan
Rob Seaman scripsit: > But there are also risks associated with *not* having > leap seconds, with allowing DUT1 to increase beyond 0.9s, for > instance. And events triggered by those risks would not draw > worldwide scrutiny - they could occur year-round and the media circus > would have moved on

Re: Problems with GLONASS Raw Receiver Data at Start of New Year

2006-01-14 Thread Richard Langley
The problem existed for only 2-1/2 minutes, not hours. Might be coincidental with the leap second but I've not noticed this problem at other times. Stations were not running during the previous leap second. UNB1 Web page is here: . IGS Central Bureau Web page

Re: Problems with GLONASS Raw Receiver Data at Start of New Year

2006-01-14 Thread Rob Seaman
On Jan 13, 2006, at 7:51 AM, Richard Langley wrote: The International GNSS Service (IGS) includes a sub-network of continuously operating GLONASS monitor stations (about 50) including one at the University of New Brunswick (UNB1). At UNB1 we lost C1 (coarse code on L1 frequencies), P1 (precisio

Problems with GLONASS Raw Receiver Data at Start of New Year

2006-01-13 Thread Richard Langley
The International GNSS Service (IGS) includes a sub-network of continuously operating GLONASS monitor stations (about 50) including one at the University of New Brunswick (UNB1). At UNB1 we lost C1 (coarse code on L1 frequencies), P1 (precision code on L1), and P2 (precision code on L2) observatio