> Brooke Clarke wrote: >> Hi Richard: >> >> I neat idea. >> >> I would think there are three key measurements: >> TI1 = GPS-A >> TI2 = GPS-B >> TI3 = A-B >> Of these A-B is the most precise and the other two with GPS involved are much >> lower stability. In your proposed method only the poor time intervals are >> being measured. >> >> So I would think the approach would be make all three measurements at the >> same >> time then in a perfect world you could solve three equations in three >> unknowns. >> But I suspect that the errors will not exactly balance. So you could split >> the closing error in two and assign half to A and half to B. >> >> Have Fun, >> >> Brooke Clarke >> > Brooke > > The 3 equations aren't independent so you cannot solve them for the 3 > unknowns. > However, in principle you can solve them for the statistical > instabilities of the 3 sources provided that the 3 sources are > statistically independent. > > Bruce > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. >
Bruce, Thanks for catching the error and your analysis. I was just theorizing on some way to reduce the GPS variations prior to filtering the data using the data availablefrom multiple controllers. I wanted feedback from the experts on if it was possible and apparently it is not. My dual standard works well as it is, so I guess I will just live with the GPS noise like everyone else not using carrier disciplining. Thanks again, Richard _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
