You guys missed my point. I did not mean that survey and timing errors are so large What I meant was that even if you assume unreasonably large errors (like a surveyor being off by a full meter) you still don't get 60nS.
If I were to bet money, still I'd bet on some experimental error. That is the safe bet. But I'd sure be happy to loose On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Jim Lux <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11/21/11 5:15 PM, Bob Camp wrote: > >> Hi >> >> You can have a surveyor come out and locate your gizmo to sub one inch >> accuracy for a lot less than a clock trip costs. A one meter ( or 3 ns) >> error would be pretty large these days. Both have been demonstrated / >> proven so often that they aren't really open to challenge. >> >> The total error is a sum of lots of things. Location and time of day are >> the easy stuff... >> > > OK, So assume an unlikely huge position uncertainly of one meter. On >>> top of >>> that let's assume the surveyor got it wrong too and missed by a full >>> meter. Both of these added together can only account for about 10% >>> of what they saw. Light moves across one meter in about 3nS You >>> need to explain 60nS If the result is because of uncertainty in the >>> location then the we are talking about 20 meters of position error. >>> >> > > > in the first paper, the distance uncertainty was given as 20cm > > ______________________________**_________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/** > mailman/listinfo/time-nuts<https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts> > and follow the instructions there. > -- Chris Albertson Redondo Beach, California _______________________________________________ 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.
