Hi Brooke, thank you for the links! I wish one would explain this method to me and the rest of the newsgroup in the speak typical for time nuts. Is it really something that I can do in reality? What is the cost of the Ashtech receiver? Why is this method un-discussed here?
Best regards Ulrich Bangert > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Brooke Clarke > Gesendet: Dienstag, 1. August 2006 21:50 > An: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement > Betreff: [time-nuts] Timing or Navigation GPS Receivers (was: > Turning off PPS when not enough satellites) > > > Hi Ulrich: > > It's interesting that the now in development carrier phase GPS time > transfer method that might offer 1,000 times lower > uncertanity is based > on the Ashtech Z12 surveying receiver, not a timing specific > GPS receiver. > http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ashtech%20Z12%20carrier%20 > phase%20GPS%20time%20transfer&hl=en&lr=&oi=scholart > > Have Fun, > > Brooke Clarke > > -- > w/Java http://www.PRC68.com > w/o Java http://www.pacificsites.com/~brooke/PRC68COM.shtml > http://www.precisionclock.com > > > > Ulrich Bangert wrote: > > >Poul-Henning did already give the answer. However i am not > very happy > >with the formulation > > > > > > > >>In other words, it has nothing to do with the receiver, it's > >>about what you ask it to do. > >> > >> > > > >because > > > >a) I never saw a navigation receiver featuring a "position hold" mode > > > >b) I never saw a timing receiver featuring a "navigate > forever" mode. > >Everything that i had in my hands had a "automatic site survey" mode > >after which it would return to "position hold". That's why i > think the > >formulation that it depends on the receiver's primary purpose is not > >that wrong! > > > >Regards > >Ulrich Bangert > > > > > > > >>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > >>Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Poul-Henning Kamp > >>Gesendet: Dienstag, 1. August 2006 12:28 > >>An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Discussion of precise time and > >>frequency measurement > >>Betreff: Re: [time-nuts] Turning off PPS when not enough satellites > >> > >> > >>In message > >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >> > >> > >>>On Tue, August 1, 2006 10:56, Ulrich Bangert said: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>Note that any gps receiver can not be really good for timing and > >>>>navigation at the same time, so all navigation > >>>> > >>>> > >>receivers > >> > >> > >>>>make bad timing receivers. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>I am interested in your arguments for the above statement. Please > >>>elaborate! > >>> > >>> > >>The above statement should probably be read as: > >> > >>"If you solve for both position and time you get worse time > >>than if you hold the position constant and solve only for time" > >> > >>In other words, it has nothing to do with the receiver, it's > >>about what you ask it to do. > >> > >>Not all receivers can do "position hold" mode of course. > >> > >>-- > >>Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 > >>FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe > >>Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by > >>incompetence. > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.febo.com/cgi-> bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list [email protected] https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
