Yo jimlux! On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 06:33:19 -0800 jimlux <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/7/17 8:39 PM, Gary E. Miller wrote: > > Yo Tom! > > > > On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 20:16:09 -0800 > > "Tom Van Baak" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>> Which is small compared to the published GPS time resolution > >>> (IS_GPS_200H, page 54) of 90 ns. > >> > >> Correct. GPS performs far better than the original spec. Like the > >> Mars rovers... > > > > Of course, but then you are on a wing and a prayer, not > > engineering. > > Not really - the original spec for GPS was based on being able to > track to a single chip of the PN code at 1 MHz, or about 300m > position error, and 30m for the precise code at 10MHz. I agree with almost all you ssid. And none of it applies to the point I made. I'm talking about the current GPS standard (IS-GPS-200H), nothing dated at all. No one here has yet bothered to address the issues I raise in Section 3.3.4. What I say about 3.3.4 is perfectly compatible with with your arguments. I'll be happy to discuss my interpretation of 3.3.4 and what I think it means, when someone shows they actually read it. RGDS GARY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97703 [email protected] Tel:+1 541 382 8588 Veritas liberabit vos. -- Quid est veritas? "If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it." - Lord Kelvin
pgp00RpVxbAAU.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.
