On 2/2/11 7:14 AM, Mike S wrote:
At 09:45 AM 2/2/2011, jimlux wrote...
what was interesting is that the jamming/fail to get fix was at a
closer distance for the consumer receiver than for the FAA approved
receiver for aircraft. Maybe it's better signal processing in the
(presumably newer) consumer receiver.
Or maybe they modelled terrestrial attenuation (buildings/trees/terrain)
of the interfering signal for the consumer unit, but assumed
line-of-sight for the aviation one. That would more closely mimic real
world usage conditions.
I got the impression that it wasn't modeled, but was an actual field
test of some sort. I'll have to go back and reread.
But, it's possible that the consumer receiver has better multipath and
interference rejection, if only because it's newer. Aviation stuff takes
longer to go through the approval cycle, so it tends to lag consumer
electronics in terms of technology adoption.
_______________________________________________
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.
