On 18/01/14 04:09, Jim Lux wrote:
On 1/17/14 11:35 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 2014-01-16 20:29, Hal Murray wrote:
anders.e.e.wal...@gmail.com said:
The real benefit of dual-frequency is you can do post-processing with
PPP.
Javad has some modules but they start at 3 kUSD - if anyone knows
Magnus, I believe that he is referencing the the new L2 C/A code, which is
not protected. Reference
http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/modernization/civilsignals/
Michael / K7HIL
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Magnus Danielson
mag...@rubidium.dyndns.org wrote:
On 16/01/14 20:29, Hal Murray
On 1/17/14 8:43 AM, Michael Perrett wrote:
Magnus, I believe that he is referencing the the new L2 C/A code, which is
not protected. Reference
http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/modernization/civilsignals/
Is the L2c officially on yet? and how many S/V are radiating it? I know
there was some
According to *GPS World*;
The U.S. Air Force is directing transmission of continuous CNAV
message-populated L2C and L5 signals starting in April 2014. . This is
almost always optimistic, I would guess availability within 2014 a very
high probability.
Michael / K7HIL
Ref:
On 17 Jan, 2014, at 11:43 , Michael Perrett mkperr...@gmail.com wrote:
Magnus, I believe that he is referencing the the new L2 C/A code, which is
not protected. Reference
http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/modernization/civilsignals/
It would be nice to have a receiver for that when they turn it
On 2014-01-16 20:29, Hal Murray wrote:
anders.e.e.wal...@gmail.com said:
The real benefit of dual-frequency is you can do post-processing with PPP.
Javad has some modules but they start at 3 kUSD - if anyone knows of hobby
level priced L1/L2 receivers that can produce rinex-files for PPP
Michael,
On 17/01/14 17:43, Michael Perrett wrote:
Magnus, I believe that he is referencing the the new L2 C/A code, which is
not protected. Reference
http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/modernization/civilsignals/
Regardless of how much I love the new civilian signals, they are at best
scars at
On 17/01/14 19:17, Dennis Ferguson wrote:
On 17 Jan, 2014, at 11:43 , Michael Perrett mkperr...@gmail.com wrote:
Magnus, I believe that he is referencing the the new L2 C/A code, which is
not protected. Reference
http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/modernization/civilsignals/
It would be nice to
On 1/17/14 11:35 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 2014-01-16 20:29, Hal Murray wrote:
anders.e.e.wal...@gmail.com said:
The real benefit of dual-frequency is you can do post-processing with
PPP.
Javad has some modules but they start at 3 kUSD - if anyone knows of
hobby
level priced L1/L2
Looking at this graph:
http://www.thinksrs.com/assets/instr/PRS10/PRS10diag2LG.gif
If you have a good PRS10, it only needs adjusting on the many-hours
timescale?
How much better is a dual-frequency receiver going to be for this, compared
to a single frequency receiver?
The real benefit of
anders.e.e.wal...@gmail.com said:
The real benefit of dual-frequency is you can do post-processing with PPP.
Javad has some modules but they start at 3 kUSD - if anyone knows of hobby
level priced L1/L2 receivers that can produce rinex-files for PPP processing
that would be interesting!
Has
On 16/01/14 20:29, Hal Murray wrote:
anders.e.e.wal...@gmail.com said:
The real benefit of dual-frequency is you can do post-processing with PPP.
Javad has some modules but they start at 3 kUSD - if anyone knows of hobby
level priced L1/L2 receivers that can produce rinex-files for PPP
12 matches
Mail list logo
