Yo Tom! On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 15:49:00 -0700 "Tom Van Baak" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Equating 22 m with 73 ns, or equating 1 foot with 1 ns is only true
> in the impossibly rare case of one satellite directly above you.
I should have mentioned that I made some simplifying assumptions:
The cow is sperical, its albedo is 1.0, and she is in a vacuum. :-)
I could nit-pick your nit-picky analysis, but at least I came up with a
real number. What is your real number? I really would like to hear a
fully derived answer, and see how well my back of the hand calcuation
compares.
> An accurate position is desirable. No question about that. This note
> is just a plea not to apply the speed-of-light number or the
> "nanosecond a foot" rule-of-thumb out of context.
As a time-nut, you are right, but since I am an engineer, if I get it
within a factor of 4 I'm happy. :-)
Almost all people when they hear 73 nanoSec, which is hardly more than 2
sigma of a good GPS, they say "Never Mind".
RGDS
GARY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97703
[email protected] Tel:+1 541 382 8588
pgp4Kj7NcOEgO.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ 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.
