Re: [time-nuts] Anyone Know What The Models Were In This NIST Paper?
I do not have any say in it but I voiced the groups concerns to a few affiliates at NIST today. One Senior Researcher told me he has been making an effort for some time now to document all the equipment used related to a research project, adding the standard disclaimer that it was not an endorsement or recommendation. I tried to reach one of the papers author to see if they were comfortable releasing more GPS product data but missed him. I will try again Monday, but it is really up the authors what they feel comfortable with. I will also inquire as to what configuration of GPS they currently use for Time and Freq. Whether they use L1, or L1/L2, Carrier Phase or what the current thinking is of state of the art. Thomas Knox Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 00:33:28 +0100 From: mag...@rubidium.dyndns.org To: time-nuts@febo.com Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Anyone Know What The Models Were In This NIST Paper? On 10/31/2013 12:14 AM, Jim Lux wrote: On 10/30/13 3:46 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote: Hi, They have learned the hard way that they can't do that easily. They can, if they add the necessary mentioning of vendor X and their product Y does in no way means an endorsement. I've seen presentations starting with a non-endorsement statement so that they can then say Oh, this is the boxes we have chosen to use, which tends to just render spread of information and sharing of experience amongst the users. I expect them (NIST and other publicly funded institutions) to act like this. It is a bit annoying when you just want to know what they where using, but it's understandable. It is even more understandable as they start to list miss-features of device A, B and C, but not device D. It works both ways, when you have a device that you're particularly proud of, and it performs well in the tests, you want them to say Jim Lux's fabulous device performed orders of magnitude better than all other devices tested, particularly the unusually poor performance from the device from Magnus Danielson grin. No need to write that, as it is common knowledge that MD's device is not only of inferior quality and performance, but the residue of a hedgehog nest, at best. grin But there are also other forces at work. There are cases where IEEE and authors were sued because of a paper that essentially said that a particular product not only didn't work, but that underlying physics guaranteed that it couldn't work. (early streamer emission devices, and a paper by Mousa, in particular) It would be an amusing story, if all the litigation hadn't happened. For instance, Mousa reports on one installation where the lightning eliminator was completely destroyed by a lightning stroke. The traffic controllers at Tampa saw a flash of light during a storm, heard thunder and observed a shower of sparks drop past the tower window. A later visit to the rooftop revealed that a part of the charge dissipater array of Manufacturer “A” had disappeared. that would tend to drive authors to such circumlocutions as Brand X, etc. Oh yes. But we do these things over at this side of the pond, without having the use of the legal system, as seems customary on your side of the pond. Cheers, Magnus ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Anyone Know What The Models Were In This NIST Paper?
I am just glad this thread ran. Just downloaded the paper and its one of those questions I have had for a while but no time to do some digging. Great! Regards Paul WB8TSL On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Magnus Danielson mag...@rubidium.dyndns.org wrote: On 10/31/2013 12:14 AM, Jim Lux wrote: On 10/30/13 3:46 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote: Hi, They have learned the hard way that they can't do that easily. They can, if they add the necessary mentioning of vendor X and their product Y does in no way means an endorsement. I've seen presentations starting with a non-endorsement statement so that they can then say Oh, this is the boxes we have chosen to use, which tends to just render spread of information and sharing of experience amongst the users. I expect them (NIST and other publicly funded institutions) to act like this. It is a bit annoying when you just want to know what they where using, but it's understandable. It is even more understandable as they start to list miss-features of device A, B and C, but not device D. It works both ways, when you have a device that you're particularly proud of, and it performs well in the tests, you want them to say Jim Lux's fabulous device performed orders of magnitude better than all other devices tested, particularly the unusually poor performance from the device from Magnus Danielson grin. No need to write that, as it is common knowledge that MD's device is not only of inferior quality and performance, but the residue of a hedgehog nest, at best. grin But there are also other forces at work. There are cases where IEEE and authors were sued because of a paper that essentially said that a particular product not only didn't work, but that underlying physics guaranteed that it couldn't work. (early streamer emission devices, and a paper by Mousa, in particular) It would be an amusing story, if all the litigation hadn't happened. For instance, Mousa reports on one installation where the lightning eliminator was completely destroyed by a lightning stroke. The traffic controllers at Tampa saw a flash of light during a storm, heard thunder and observed a shower of sparks drop past the tower window. A later visit to the rooftop revealed that a part of the charge dissipater array of Manufacturer “A” had disappeared. that would tend to drive authors to such circumlocutions as Brand X, etc. Oh yes. But we do these things over at this side of the pond, without having the use of the legal system, as seems customary on your side of the pond. Cheers, Magnus ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Anyone Know What The Models Were In This NIST Paper?
John the problem is the NIST does not endorse one brand vs another. They go to great lengths to stay neutral. But if knowledge of the products used sheds light on the research it is not a usually a problem. I would say an educated guess the 6 and 8 channel receivers were oncores, and the rubidium oscillators were LPRO's. Thomas Knox From: j...@westmorelandengineering.com Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 19:06:25 -0700 To: time-nuts@febo.com Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Anyone Know What The Models Were In This NIST Paper? Bob, Yes - well, it is a little dated - so I would think the chance for a competitive edge would have expired. Maybe not for models C and D but I would certainly think so for Models A B. There must be some sort of technical statute of limitations, correct? ;) Regards, John Westmoreland On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Bob Camp li...@rtty.us wrote: Hi That’s always one of those “we can only tell you if you work for the US government” sort of things. If anybody knows it’s one of those “you better not tell” things. Bob On Oct 29, 2013, at 8:40 PM, John C. Westmoreland, P.E. j...@westmorelandengineering.com wrote: Hello, Does anyone know what Models A, B, C, and D were in this paper? Or maybe had a good idea? http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=50196 Thanks! John Westmoreland ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Anyone Know What The Models Were In This NIST Paper?
Hi I believe that Jim is more or less right. There seems to be an agreement not to name names. I’m sure it’s partly to keep everybody happy when the paper is presented. It also does relate to some sort of rules and regs. Bob On Oct 30, 2013, at 3:00 AM, Tom Knox act...@hotmail.com wrote: John the problem is the NIST does not endorse one brand vs another. They go to great lengths to stay neutral. But if knowledge of the products used sheds light on the research it is not a usually a problem. I would say an educated guess the 6 and 8 channel receivers were oncores, and the rubidium oscillators were LPRO's. Thomas Knox From: j...@westmorelandengineering.com Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 19:06:25 -0700 To: time-nuts@febo.com Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Anyone Know What The Models Were In This NIST Paper? Bob, Yes - well, it is a little dated - so I would think the chance for a competitive edge would have expired. Maybe not for models C and D but I would certainly think so for Models A B. There must be some sort of technical statute of limitations, correct? ;) Regards, John Westmoreland On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Bob Camp li...@rtty.us wrote: Hi That’s always one of those “we can only tell you if you work for the US government” sort of things. If anybody knows it’s one of those “you better not tell” things. Bob On Oct 29, 2013, at 8:40 PM, John C. Westmoreland, P.E. j...@westmorelandengineering.com wrote: Hello, Does anyone know what Models A, B, C, and D were in this paper? Or maybe had a good idea? http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=50196 Thanks! John Westmoreland ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Anyone Know What The Models Were In This NIST Paper?
Hi, They have learned the hard way that they can't do that easily. They can, if they add the necessary mentioning of vendor X and their product Y does in no way means an endorsement. I've seen presentations starting with a non-endorsement statement so that they can then say Oh, this is the boxes we have chosen to use, which tends to just render spread of information and sharing of experience amongst the users. I expect them (NIST and other publicly funded institutions) to act like this. It is a bit annoying when you just want to know what they where using, but it's understandable. It is even more understandable as they start to list miss-features of device A, B and C, but not device D. It's a balance to share information which can be very useful, but not cause people to be upset by being left out or feeling discredited. When working on the commercial side of things, I try to respect this restriction and assume it's usage, while trying to find a suitable compromise at times. The same goes when writing standards. Cheers, Magnus On 10/30/2013 12:12 PM, Bob Camp wrote: Hi I believe that Jim is more or less right. There seems to be an agreement not to name names. I’m sure it’s partly to keep everybody happy when the paper is presented. It also does relate to some sort of rules and regs. Bob On Oct 30, 2013, at 3:00 AM, Tom Knox act...@hotmail.com wrote: John the problem is the NIST does not endorse one brand vs another. They go to great lengths to stay neutral. But if knowledge of the products used sheds light on the research it is not a usually a problem. I would say an educated guess the 6 and 8 channel receivers were oncores, and the rubidium oscillators were LPRO's. Thomas Knox From: j...@westmorelandengineering.com Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 19:06:25 -0700 To: time-nuts@febo.com Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Anyone Know What The Models Were In This NIST Paper? Bob, Yes - well, it is a little dated - so I would think the chance for a competitive edge would have expired. Maybe not for models C and D but I would certainly think so for Models A B. There must be some sort of technical statute of limitations, correct? ;) Regards, John Westmoreland On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Bob Camp li...@rtty.us wrote: Hi That’s always one of those “we can only tell you if you work for the US government” sort of things. If anybody knows it’s one of those “you better not tell” things. Bob On Oct 29, 2013, at 8:40 PM, John C. Westmoreland, P.E. j...@westmorelandengineering.com wrote: Hello, Does anyone know what Models A, B, C, and D were in this paper? Or maybe had a good idea? http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=50196 Thanks! John Westmoreland ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Anyone Know What The Models Were In This NIST Paper?
On 10/30/13 3:46 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote: Hi, They have learned the hard way that they can't do that easily. They can, if they add the necessary mentioning of vendor X and their product Y does in no way means an endorsement. I've seen presentations starting with a non-endorsement statement so that they can then say Oh, this is the boxes we have chosen to use, which tends to just render spread of information and sharing of experience amongst the users. I expect them (NIST and other publicly funded institutions) to act like this. It is a bit annoying when you just want to know what they where using, but it's understandable. It is even more understandable as they start to list miss-features of device A, B and C, but not device D. It works both ways, when you have a device that you're particularly proud of, and it performs well in the tests, you want them to say Jim Lux's fabulous device performed orders of magnitude better than all other devices tested, particularly the unusually poor performance from the device from Magnus Danielson grin. But there are also other forces at work. There are cases where IEEE and authors were sued because of a paper that essentially said that a particular product not only didn't work, but that underlying physics guaranteed that it couldn't work. (early streamer emission devices, and a paper by Mousa, in particular) It would be an amusing story, if all the litigation hadn't happened. For instance, Mousa reports on one installation where the lightning eliminator was completely destroyed by a lightning stroke. The traffic controllers at Tampa saw a flash of light during a storm, heard thunder and observed a shower of sparks drop past the tower window. A later visit to the rooftop revealed that a part of the charge dissipater array of Manufacturer “A” had disappeared. that would tend to drive authors to such circumlocutions as Brand X, etc. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Anyone Know What The Models Were In This NIST Paper?
On 10/31/2013 12:14 AM, Jim Lux wrote: On 10/30/13 3:46 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote: Hi, They have learned the hard way that they can't do that easily. They can, if they add the necessary mentioning of vendor X and their product Y does in no way means an endorsement. I've seen presentations starting with a non-endorsement statement so that they can then say Oh, this is the boxes we have chosen to use, which tends to just render spread of information and sharing of experience amongst the users. I expect them (NIST and other publicly funded institutions) to act like this. It is a bit annoying when you just want to know what they where using, but it's understandable. It is even more understandable as they start to list miss-features of device A, B and C, but not device D. It works both ways, when you have a device that you're particularly proud of, and it performs well in the tests, you want them to say Jim Lux's fabulous device performed orders of magnitude better than all other devices tested, particularly the unusually poor performance from the device from Magnus Danielson grin. No need to write that, as it is common knowledge that MD's device is not only of inferior quality and performance, but the residue of a hedgehog nest, at best. grin But there are also other forces at work. There are cases where IEEE and authors were sued because of a paper that essentially said that a particular product not only didn't work, but that underlying physics guaranteed that it couldn't work. (early streamer emission devices, and a paper by Mousa, in particular) It would be an amusing story, if all the litigation hadn't happened. For instance, Mousa reports on one installation where the lightning eliminator was completely destroyed by a lightning stroke. The traffic controllers at Tampa saw a flash of light during a storm, heard thunder and observed a shower of sparks drop past the tower window. A later visit to the rooftop revealed that a part of the charge dissipater array of Manufacturer “A” had disappeared. that would tend to drive authors to such circumlocutions as Brand X, etc. Oh yes. But we do these things over at this side of the pond, without having the use of the legal system, as seems customary on your side of the pond. Cheers, Magnus ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
[time-nuts] Anyone Know What The Models Were In This NIST Paper?
Hello, Does anyone know what Models A, B, C, and D were in this paper? Or maybe had a good idea? http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=50196 Thanks! John Westmoreland ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Anyone Know What The Models Were In This NIST Paper?
Hi That’s always one of those “we can only tell you if you work for the US government” sort of things. If anybody knows it’s one of those “you better not tell” things. Bob On Oct 29, 2013, at 8:40 PM, John C. Westmoreland, P.E. j...@westmorelandengineering.com wrote: Hello, Does anyone know what Models A, B, C, and D were in this paper? Or maybe had a good idea? http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=50196 Thanks! John Westmoreland ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Anyone Know What The Models Were In This NIST Paper?
Bob, Yes - well, it is a little dated - so I would think the chance for a competitive edge would have expired. Maybe not for models C and D but I would certainly think so for Models A B. There must be some sort of technical statute of limitations, correct? ;) Regards, John Westmoreland On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Bob Camp li...@rtty.us wrote: Hi That’s always one of those “we can only tell you if you work for the US government” sort of things. If anybody knows it’s one of those “you better not tell” things. Bob On Oct 29, 2013, at 8:40 PM, John C. Westmoreland, P.E. j...@westmorelandengineering.com wrote: Hello, Does anyone know what Models A, B, C, and D were in this paper? Or maybe had a good idea? http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=50196 Thanks! John Westmoreland ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Anyone Know What The Models Were In This NIST Paper?
On 10/29/13 6:31 PM, Bob Camp wrote: Hi That’s always one of those “we can only tell you if you work for the US government” sort of things. If anybody knows it’s one of those “you better not tell” things. or more likely.. If you put actual mfr and model in, then you have to go through a lot more paperwork to justify why you're doing that, and to verify that you aren't endorsing a particular manufacturer. If you want to get the paper through the internal review process, it's just easier to use A,B,C,D than ratty old POS I bought off eBay, etc. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Anyone Know What The Models Were In This NIST Paper?
On 10/29/13 7:06 PM, John C. Westmoreland, P.E. wrote: Bob, Yes - well, it is a little dated - so I would think the chance for a competitive edge would have expired. Maybe not for models C and D but I would certainly think so for Models A B. There must be some sort of technical statute of limitations, correct? ;) Anyone can file a complaint or sue for anything, anytime. Sure, the suit is dismissed, but it's still a hassle to deal with. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
