With SA off, the difference between marine DGPS and stand alone GPS is not that significant. If my memory serves me right the Monterey jammer did jam at L1.
-- Björn > I think the problem with the Monterey Bay jammer was that he was jamming > the > DGPS correction signal, not the GPS signal itself. The DGPS correction > signal is sent over the UHF band. Most marine GPS are DGPS because they > need > the better resolution it provides, particularly to find buoys and channel > markers in the fog. The DGPS correction signal does not benefit from the > spread-spectrum modulation and associated jamming resistance of the GPS > signal itself. > > Didier > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Hal Murray >> Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 6:30 PM >> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement >> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] The Demise of LORAN (was Re: >> Reference oscillator accuracy) >> >> > Jamming Range : Average 40 meters radius Output Power : >> Total 6.5 >> > Watt >> >> > ratio : 40/6.5 = 6.15 meters/watt >> >> Isn't received power 1/R-squared? >> >> I think those calculations should be radius-squared/watts >> >> >> I find it interesting that the products designed as jammers >> have ranges of "only" a few 10s of meters while a recent >> message here said 1/2 mile from a digital-radio link that was >> transmitting on 315 MHz. (aka designed for something else >> rather than as a jammer) >> >> Similarly, the Monterey Bay jammer wasn't trying to be a >> jammer, and it wiped out a huge area. >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > _______________________________________________ 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.
