Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #422201 > unrolled thread

The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-11 06:39 +1000
    Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-10 18:15 -0700
      Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-11 19:26 +1000
        Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-11 20:05 +1000
          Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-11 20:34 +1000
            Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-11 11:38 +0000
              Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-12 10:19 +1000
                Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Mikko <mikko.levanto@outlook.com> - 2017-06-14 13:14 +0300
                  Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-15 07:19 +1000
                    Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-15 12:47 +1000
                      Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-15 19:59 +1000
                        Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-16 11:48 +1000
                          Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-17 08:53 +1000
                          Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-17 08:59 +1000
                            Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-17 02:19 +0000
                              Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-17 15:05 +1000
                                Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-18 03:35 +0000
                                  Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-19 08:13 +1000
                            Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-17 12:34 +1000
                              Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-17 15:06 +1000
                                Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-17 17:02 +1000
                                  Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-17 22:27 +1000
                              Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-17 09:49 -0500
            Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-11 21:38 +1000
              Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-12 10:14 +1000
                Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-12 12:11 +1000
                  Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-12 20:14 +1000
                    Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-13 13:05 +1000
                      Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-14 13:16 +1000
                        Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-14 12:07 +0200
                          Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-15 07:14 +1000
                            Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-15 11:57 +0200
                              Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-15 20:27 +1000
                                Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 12:06 -0700
                                Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 12:23 -0700
                                  Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-17 08:52 +1000
                                    Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-17 15:23 +1000
                                      Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-17 22:40 +1000
                                        Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-18 19:57 +1000
                                          Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-19 08:10 +1000
                                            Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-19 11:45 +1000
                                              Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-19 06:02 +0000
                                                Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-19 18:44 +1000
                                                  Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 03:17 -0700
                                                  Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-19 20:22 +1000
                                                  Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-19 12:49 +0000
                                              Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-19 18:39 +1000
                                              Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-19 22:46 -0500
                                                Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-20 20:20 +1000
                                                  Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 11:20 +0000
                                                    Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-21 08:48 +1000
                          Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 15:03 -0700
                            Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-15 08:58 +1000
            Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-12 03:54 +0000
              Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-12 20:17 +1000
      Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Lolek Atoru <oitiruc@rwuca.oa> - 2017-06-13 20:58 +0000
    Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-12 09:20 -0500
      Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Selina Dieter <uiueeits@wlwtwstd.ci> - 2017-06-12 14:29 +0000
        Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-13 14:22 +1000
          Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Nými Icelulózy <ejienm@wzsfwe.ul> - 2017-06-16 11:42 +0000
            Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-16 22:22 +1000
              Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Ecembre Abin <umueuu@eibbwaw.ee> - 2017-06-17 08:37 +0000
                Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-17 19:37 +1000
        Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-13 09:13 -0500
      Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-13 04:35 +1000
        Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-12 19:40 +0000
          Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-13 11:07 +1000
            Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-13 16:13 +0000
              Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-14 13:18 +1000
                Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-14 04:31 +0000
            Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-13 19:49 +0200
              Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-14 13:19 +1000

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#422772

On 17/06/2017 3:06 PM, HGW... wrote:
> On 17/06/17 12:34, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 17/06/2017 8:59 AM, HGW... wrote:
>>> On 16/06/17 11:48, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 15/06/2017 7:59 PM, HGW, DSc. wrote:
>>>>> On 15/06/17 12:47, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>> On 15/06/2017 7:19 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bodkin, I know that all physics seems like magic to you but if you
>>>>>>>>> care
>>>>>>>>> to consult Wikipedia, you will possibly find the the part where it
>>>>>>>>> says
>>>>>>>>> quite clearly that "the details are secret".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no such part in Wikipedia.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe Roberts, in a mad panic, has asked them to remove it....It was
>>>>>>> certainly there three days ago. I don't think you have even tried to
>>>>>>> find it. Maybe you are just another dopey indoctrinated dingleberry.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wikipedia maintains a history of changes, so which specific Wikipedia
>>>>>> article was it?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know... you know what Wiki is like, you click on one link and
>>>>> that takes you to another and then you see something else you want to
>>>>> know about and you and up not quite sure where you are. You should be
>>>>> able to find it yourself.
>>>>
>>>> I thought you'd come back with that. What strange browser are you
>>>> using that does not provide a history?
>>>>
>>>> I dispute that the alleged content ever existed (unless you put it
>>>> there yourself). Prove otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> Here is one reference to secrecy:
>>> Quote:
>>> "There are four signals available for civilian use. In order of date of
>>> introduction, these are: L1 C/A, L2C, L5 and L1C.[1] L1 C/A is also
>>> called the legacy signal and is broadcast by all satellites. The other
>>> signals are called modernized signals and not broadcast by all
>>> satellites. In addition, there are restricted signals, also broadcast to
>>> the general public, but whose encoding is secret and are intended to be
>>> used only by authorized parties. Nonetheless, some limited use of
>>> restricted signals can be made by civilians without access to the secret
>>> encoding details; this is called codeless and semi-codeless access, and
>>> is officially supported"
>>>
>>
>> That is clearly NOT talking about a mechanism for numbering
>> wavelengths, but a system that was originally intended to allow the
>> military to get metre-level (not millimetre level) accuracy, while the
>> civilian use was limited to a much less accurate system. However, it
>> is no longer used.
>>
>> I doubt the military would have a use for millimetre level accuracy.
>
> You will find other references to secret stuff.  You didn't even look
> before.. You are a pathetic wimp.

If you were referring to something else, why point to this?

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#422791

On 17/06/17 17:02, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 17/06/2017 3:06 PM, HGW... wrote:

>>> That is clearly NOT talking about a mechanism for numbering
>>> wavelengths, but a system that was originally intended to allow the
>>> military to get metre-level (not millimetre level) accuracy, while the
>>> civilian use was limited to a much less accurate system. However, it
>>> is no longer used.
>>>
>>> I doubt the military would have a use for millimetre level accuracy.
>>
>> You will find other references to secret stuff.  You didn't even look
>> before.. You are a pathetic wimp.
>
> If you were referring to something else, why point to this?

Because I don't have time to search all the articles in Wiki on GPS.
I have shown you how it refers to 'secrecy'. Have look for more yourself.

> Sylvia
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#422799

On 6/16/17 6/16/17   9:34 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 17/06/2017 8:59 AM, HGW... wrote:
>> Here is one reference to secrecy:
>> Quote:
>> "There are four signals available for civilian use. In order of date of
>> introduction, these are: L1 C/A, L2C, L5 and L1C.[1] L1 C/A is also
>> called the legacy signal and is broadcast by all satellites. The other
>> signals are called modernized signals and not broadcast by all
>> satellites. In addition, there are restricted signals, also broadcast to
>> the general public, but whose encoding is secret and are intended to be
>> used only by authorized parties. Nonetheless, some limited use of
>> restricted signals can be made by civilians without access to the secret
>> encoding details; this is called codeless and semi-codeless access, and
>> is officially supported"
>>
> 
> That is clearly NOT talking about a mechanism for numbering wavelengths, but a 
> system that was originally intended to allow the military to get metre-level 
> (not millimetre level) accuracy, while the civilian use was limited to a much 
> less accurate system. However, it is no longer used.

It is still used. The GPS now has the ability to disable civilian use of the 
signals in various regions of the earth. The encrypted signals are still 
available for use by the US military and allies.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#422241

On 11/06/2017 8:34 PM, HGW... wrote:
> On 11/06/17 20:05, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 11/06/2017 7:26 PM, HGW... wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>> In light of this improved technique, there is no doubt that GPS fully
>>>>> supports BaTh and that all arguments to the contrary are now rendered
>>>>> null and void.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for this great contribution to science.  Pardon me for
>>>> questioning such an erudite presentation, but just how does one go
>>>> about measuring the number of wavelengths in the signal carrier?
>>>
>>> Surprisingly easily actually.
>>
>> Care to provide more detail?
>
> Wel I can't tell you exactly how it is done becasue it is top secret,
> for obvious reasons.

Really, then how do you know that it exists?

...but as I said to Paul, it is quite easy in
> principle. The main reuirement is that all the clocks are in close
> absolute synch and the receiver clock error is accurately known.

The receiver clock error is not going to be accurately known until it 
can be determined from the received signals, and even then it cannot be 
determined any more accurately that the location of the receiver can.
>
> Then, all the receiver has to know is which numbered wave arrived at the
> instant a particular numbered wave was emitted. Subtract one numbers
> from the other and you have number of wavelengths in he path at the
> instant.

To determine which specific wave is arriving, the receiver would first 
have to know its location very accurately, which is clearly circular.

> If number 10000000000 arrived at the instant number 10000300000 was
> emitted, according to the receiver's corrected clock time, then the path
> length at that instant was just the difference..Multiply that by
> 19.xxxxxxxxx cms and you know the distance.
> There is an easy way to do that by just monitoring the difference in
> phases...receivers have memories and can predict what is likely to
> happen, particularly if the receiver is not moving quickly.
>
>>
>> Sylvia.
>>
>
>

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#422288

On 11/06/17 21:38, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 11/06/2017 8:34 PM, HGW... wrote:

>>>>> Thank you for this great contribution to science.  Pardon me for
>>>>> questioning such an erudite presentation, but just how does one go
>>>>> about measuring the number of wavelengths in the signal carrier?
>>>>
>>>> Surprisingly easily actually.
>>>
>>> Care to provide more detail?
>>
>> Wel I can't tell you exactly how it is done because it is top secret,
>> for obvious reasons.
> 
> Really, then how do you know that it exists?

Because I got it from Wiki. Look it up yourself.

> ...but as I said to Paul, it is quite easy in
>> principle. The main reuirement is that all the clocks are in close
>> absolute synch and the receiver clock error is accurately known.
> 
> The receiver clock error is not going to be accurately known until it 
> can be determined from the received signals, and even then it cannot be 
> determined any more accurately that the location of the receiver can.
>>
>> Then, all the receiver has to know is which numbered wave arrived at the
>> instant a particular numbered wave was emitted. Subtract one numbers
>> from the other and you have number of wavelengths in he path at the
>> instant.
> 
> To determine which specific wave is arriving, the receiver would first 
> have to know its location very accurately, which is clearly circular.

You are clearly clueless. The receiver doesn't need to where it is. 
Assume the waves are identifiable by number. The receiver has a memory 
and it only needs to know which number wave arrives at around the time 
that a particular signal was emitted. When that signal arrives, along 
with details of its emission time and wave number, the receiver only has 
to check which number wave arrived at that instant, subtract one number 
from the other and multiply by 19 cms.
In the real system, the waves would not be identifiable directly by 
number. Rather a much more sophisticated method using phase differences 
is used. Wiki mentions something to that effect but says the details are 
secret.


> Sylvia.


-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#422300

On 12/06/2017 10:14 AM, HGW... wrote:

> You are clearly clueless. The receiver doesn't need to where it is.
> Assume the waves are identifiable by number.

Why would one assume that, when they're not?

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#422342

On 12/06/17 12:11, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 12/06/2017 10:14 AM, HGW... wrote:
> 
>> You are clearly clueless. The receiver doesn't need to where it is.
>> Assume the waves are identifiable by number.
> 
> Why would one assume that, when they're not?

I am just telling you how it ca be done in principle. I know they aren't 
numbered. There are other ways to identify them.

> Sylvia.
> 


-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#422436

On 12/06/2017 8:14 PM, HGW... wrote:
> On 12/06/17 12:11, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 12/06/2017 10:14 AM, HGW... wrote:
>>
>>> You are clearly clueless. The receiver doesn't need to where it is.
>>> Assume the waves are identifiable by number.
>>
>> Why would one assume that, when they're not?
>
> I am just telling you how it ca be done in principle. I know they aren't
> numbered. There are other ways to identify them.
>
>> Sylvia.
>>
>
>

You asserted that a method involving phase differences is used. 
Determining the phase difference is what the receiver is trying to do. 
It cannot use phase difference to determine what the phase difference is.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#422520

On 13/06/17 13:05, Sylvia Else wrote:

>>
>> I am just telling you how it ca be done in principle. I know they aren't
>> numbered. There are other ways to identify them.
>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> You asserted that a method involving phase differences is used. 
> Determining the phase difference is what the receiver is trying to do. 
> It cannot use phase difference to determine what the phase difference is.

Well go and ask the GPS people how tey do it...I'm sure they wont tell 
you though.

> Sylvia.


-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#422545

Den 14.06.2017 05.16, skrev HGW...:
> On 13/06/17 13:05, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > On 12/06/2017 8:14 PM, HGW... wrote:
>>>
>>> I am just telling you how it can be done in principle. I know they aren't
>>> numbered. There are other ways to identify them.

So you have realized that the wavelengths aren't numbered.
And I can assure that it isn't possible to do it in principle.
So what is then left of your revolutionary new way to operate the GPS?

>>
>> You asserted that a method involving phase differences is used. 
>> Determining the phase difference is what the receiver is trying to do. 
>> It cannot use phase difference to determine what the phase difference is.
> 
> Well go and ask the GPS people how tey do it...

Phase difference is used in many augmented GPS systems.
But what you obviously don't understand is that there is no way
a single receiver can use phase comparison. The phases of which
signals should be compared? Even you must understand that comparing
the phases of the signals from two different satellites make no sense.
So when phase difference is used, it is always two different receivers
that are comparing the phase of the same signal from one satellite.
This make it possible to determine the distance between the two
receivers very precisely.

This principle isn't new, it has been used for many years as
I and others have told you many times.

June 2017 Paul B. Andersen wrote:
|  The distance between two points on the ground can
|  however be precisely measured by measuring the phase
|  difference between the received carrier from  one satellite
|  with known position. By using more satellites, the distance
|  and direction of that distance can be determined. The two
|  receivers must communicate (radio) to compare the phases.
|  This is used in surveying, where one receiver must be
|  stationary on a known reference point, and one movable
|  receiver can determine the exact position _relative to
|  that reference point_ to a few mm precision.
|  This is the modern theodolite.
|  This is very different from a common GPS receiver
|  like the one you have in your car
October 2008 Paul B. Andersen wrote:
|
| I will however assume that we are talking about the positioning
| algorithm used by a single GPS receiver, and not 'something else'.
|  (Like the algorithm used in GPS land surveying, where
|  two receivers connected by a radio-link are comparing the phases
|  of the carriers from the same set of satellites, which makes it
|  possible to determine their _relative_ position in the sub cm range.
|  This is something else, indeed.

October 2003 Paul B. Andersen wrote:
|
| To lurkers:
| Yes, phase comparison is used in some cases.
| In surveillance, two receivers with a radio link between them
| are comparing the phase of the carrier emitted by the SAME
| satellite. The phase difference between the receivers can
| determine the distance between the receivers in the cm or even
| mm range.
| But that's something entirely different, of course.

January 2001 Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| But I know from whence your confusion stems.
| You are confusing with the method used in surveying.
| The principle is (very) briefly thus:
| Two receivers with a radio link between them both measure
| the carrier phase from _the same_ satellite. By comparing
| the phases they can calculate the difference in transit time
| from the two receivers to the one satellite. Thus they can
| determine their _relative_  position along one line to
| the centimetre range. By doing the same with another
| satellite, they can determine their relative position along
| another (crossing) line.
| One (stationary) receiver is the reference at a known position,
| the other one is mobile, and measures the position relative
| to the reference to a precision in the cm range.

What is new in the later years is that there in many countries
are a grid of reference stations which make it possible for receivers
to determine their position relative to a reference station to
sub cm precision.
For example, in the US there is more than such 2000 reference stations.

> I'm sure they wont tell you though.

This incredible stupid!
If it is true that the GPS receiver on your wrist give you
the position to sub cm precision:
There must be a reference station in your vicinity.
Your GPS receiver must, in addition to communicate with
SVs, communicate with the reference station.
To do that the producers of the GPS-receiver must obviously
know in minute detail how the augmented GPS system works.
And you claim it is secret! :-D



-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#422590

On 14/06/17 20:07, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 14.06.2017 05.16, skrev HGW...:
>> On 13/06/17 13:05, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 12/06/2017 8:14 PM, HGW... wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I am just telling you how it can be done in principle. I know
>>>> they aren't numbered. There are other ways to identify them.
>
> So you have realized that the wavelengths aren't numbered. And I can
> assure that it isn't possible to do it in principle. So what is then
> left of your revolutionary new way to operate the GPS?

Paul, whether you like it or not, that is the way GPS now operates. It
determines the number of wavelengths in each signal and gets around the
errors associated with variable signal speed.
It is very easy to do in principle.  I can think of several ways...and
none involves labeling each cycle.

>>> You asserted that a method involving phase differences is used.
>>> Determining the phase difference is what the receiver is trying
>>> to do. It cannot use phase difference to determine what the
>>> phase difference is.
>>
>> Well go and ask the GPS people how they do it...
>
> Phase difference is used in many augmented GPS systems.

Not the type used in establishing numbers of wavelengths.

> June 2017 Paul B. Andersen wrote: |  The distance between two points
> on the ground can |  however be precisely measured by measuring the
> phase |  difference between the received carrier from  one satellite
> |  with known position. By using more satellites, the distance |  and
> direction of that distance can be determined. The two |  receivers
> must communicate (radio) to compare the phases. |  This is used in
> surveying, where one receiver must be |  stationary on a known
> reference point, and one movable |  receiver can determine the exact
> position _relative to |  that reference point_ to a few mm
> precision. |  This is the modern theodolite. |  This is very
> different from a common GPS receiver |  like the one you have in your
> car October 2008 Paul B. Andersen wrote: | | I will however assume
> that we are talking about the positioning | algorithm used by a
> single GPS receiver, and not 'something else'. |  (Like the algorithm
> used in GPS land surveying, where |  two receivers connected by a
> radio-link are comparing the phases |  of the carriers from the same
> set of satellites, which makes it |  possible to determine their
> _relative_ position in the sub cm range. |  This is something else,
> indeed.
>
> October 2003 Paul B. Andersen wrote: <snip out of date stuff>
> January 2001 Paul B. Andersen wrote: <snip out of date stuff>
>
> What is new in the later years is that there in many countries are a
> grid of reference stations which make it possible for receivers to
> determine their position relative to a reference station to sub cm
> precision. For example, in the US there is more than such 2000
> reference stations.

So they should. Satellites aren't really needed at all.

>> I'm sure they wont tell you though.
>
> This incredible stupid! If it is true that the GPS receiver on your
> wrist give you the position to sub cm precision: There must be a
> reference station in your vicinity. Your GPS receiver must, in
> addition to communicate with SVs, communicate with the reference
> station. To do that the producers of the GPS-receiver must obviously
> know in minute detail how the augmented GPS system works. And you
> claim it is secret! :-D
>

You talk crap as usual. My $70 GPS 'wristwatch' is loaded with built-in 
info for 40000 golf courses around the world. I can play on any of those 
course and it will immediately recognize not only the course name but 
also which hole I am playing. Then it tells me within a few cms how far 
I am from the green. It obviously does not use a reference station.
It just 'counts wavelengths' and does a quick triangulation. c+v signal 
errors are eliminated because wavelength is ABSOLUTE as I have been 
telling you for years.

>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#422613

Den 14.06.2017 23.14, skrev HGW, DSc.:
> On 14/06/17 20:07, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 14.06.2017 05.16, skrev HGW...:
>>> On 13/06/17 13:05, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 12/06/2017 8:14 PM, HGW... wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I am just telling you how it can be done in principle. I know
>>>>> they aren't numbered. There are other ways to identify them.
>>
>> So you have realized that the wavelengths aren't numbered. And I can
>> assure that it isn't possible to do it in principle. So what is then
>> left of your revolutionary new way to operate the GPS?
> 
> Paul, whether you like it or not, that is the way GPS now operates. It
> determines the number of wavelengths in each signal and gets around the
> errors associated with variable signal speed.
> It is very easy to do in principle.  I can think of several ways...and
> none involves labeling each cycle.

:-D

>>>> You asserted that a method involving phase differences is used.
>>>> Determining the phase difference is what the receiver is trying
>>>> to do. It cannot use phase difference to determine what the
>>>> phase difference is.
>>>
>>> Well go and ask the GPS people how they do it...
>>
>> Phase difference is used in many augmented GPS systems.

But not in all.
Traditional differential GPS does not.

>> What is new in the later years is that there in many countries are a
>> grid of reference stations which make it possible for receivers to
>> determine their position relative to a reference station to sub cm
>> precision. For example, in the US there is more than such 2000
>> reference stations.

But these 2000 reference stations in the US do use carrier
phase measurements. (CORS)

> So they should. Satellites aren't really needed at all.
> 
>>> I'm sure they wont tell you though.
>>
>> This incredible stupid! If it is true that the GPS receiver on your
>> wrist give you the position to sub cm precision: There must be a
>> reference station in your vicinity. Your GPS receiver must, in
>> addition to communicate with SVs, communicate with the reference
>> station. To do that the producers of the GPS-receiver must obviously
>> know in minute detail how the augmented GPS system works. And you
>> claim it is secret! :-D
>>
> 
> You talk crap as usual. My $70 GPS 'wristwatch' is loaded with built-in 
> info for 40000 golf courses around the world. I can play on any of those 
> course and it will immediately recognize not only the course name but 
> also which hole I am playing. Then it tells me within a few cms how far 
> I am from the green. It obviously does not use a reference station.

Is that why you 1.5 hours after this posting wrote:
"THe stationary facility only sends a time signal."

So you know there is a local reference station,
we are talking about a differential GPS system.

Nothing new about that, but what's new is that many
golf courses around the world have installed such local
differential GPS reference stations, and that special
GPS receivers for use on those courses are available.

> It just 'counts wavelengths' and does a quick triangulation. c+v signal 
> errors are eliminated because wavelength is ABSOLUTE as I have been 
> telling you for years.

:-D


-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#422618

On 15/06/17 19:57, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

>
> But not in all. Traditional differential GPS does not.

> But these 2000 reference stations in the US do use carrier phase
> measurements. (CORS)
>
>> So they should. Satellites aren't really needed at all.
>>
>>>> I'm sure they wont tell you though.

>>>
>>
>> You talk crap as usual. My $70 GPS 'wristwatch' is loaded with
>> built-in info for 40000 golf courses around the world. I can play
>> on any of those course and it will immediately recognize not only
>> the course name but also which hole I am playing. Then it tells me
>> within a few cms how far I am from the green. It obviously does not
>> use a reference station.
>
> Is that why you 1.5 hours after this posting wrote: "THe stationary
> facility only sends a time signal."

That's what the article says. I can only go by what I read
I would say that its main purpose is simply to maintain a clock time
that is in absolute synch with the orbiting ones.
...that makes sense because perfect timing is needed to count wavelengths.

> So you know there is a local reference station, we are talking about
> a differential GPS system.

My course does not have a local reference station.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#422664

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 5:26:21 AM UTC-5, HGW, DSc. wrote:
> On 15/06/17 19:57, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> > Is that why you 1.5 hours after this posting wrote: "THe stationary
> > facility only sends a time signal."
> 
> That's what the article says. I can only go by what I read
> I would say that its main purpose is simply to maintain a clock time
> that is in absolute synch with the orbiting ones.
> ...that makes sense because perfect timing is needed to count wavelengths.

You presume that the authors of the website necessarily get all the details
correct? You believe everything that you read on the internet?
 
> > So you know there is a local reference station, we are talking about
> > a differential GPS system.
> 
> My course does not have a local reference station.

Golf courses are a very competitive business, so most major courses offer DGPS.
Maybe not all of the tiny municipal 9-hole par 35 courses, but certainly all the
big ones.

Besides which, DGPS offers important cost savings benefits to the course owners.
As one important part of a total water management program, DGPS (along with
choice of grasses, advanced irrigation systems, landscape design, mowing
strategies, irrigation scheduling etc.) helps provide savings of many thousands
of dollars per year.
  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#422667

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 5:26:21 AM UTC-5, HGW, DSc. wrote:
> On 15/06/17 19:57, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> > Is that why you 1.5 hours after this posting wrote: "THe stationary
> > facility only sends a time signal."

You presume that the authors of the website necessarily get all the details 
correct? You believe everything that you read on the internet? 

> That's what the article says. I can only go by what I read
> I would say that its main purpose is simply to maintain a clock time
> that is in absolute synch with the orbiting ones.
> ...that makes sense because perfect timing is needed to count wavelengths.

You presume that the authors of the website necessarily get all the details 
correct? You believe everything that you read on the internet? 
 
> > So you know there is a local reference station, we are talking about
> > a differential GPS system.
> 
> My course does not have a local reference station.

Golf courses are a very competitive business, so most major courses offer DGPS. 
Maybe not all of the tiny municipal 5-hole courses, but certainly all the big 
ones. 

Besides which, DGPS offers important cost savings benefits to the course owners. 
As one important part of a total water management program, DGPS (along with 
choice of grasses, advanced irrigation systems, landscape design, mowing 
strategies, irrigation scheduling etc.) helps provide savings of many thousands 
of dollars per year. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#422758

On 16/06/17 05:23, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 5:26:21 AM UTC-5, HGW, DSc. wrote:

> You presume that the authors of the website necessarily get all the 
> details correct? You believe everything that you read on the 
> internet?
> 
>>> So you know there is a local reference station, we are talking 
>>> about a differential GPS system.
>> 
>> My course does not have a local reference station.
> 
> Golf courses are a very competitive business, so most major courses 
> offer DGPS. Maybe not all of the tiny municipal 5-hole courses, but 
> certainly all the big ones.
> 
> Besides which, DGPS offers important cost savings benefits to the 
> course owners. As one important part of a total water management 
> program, DGPS (along with choice of grasses, advanced irrigation 
> systems, landscape design, mowing strategies, irrigation scheduling 
> etc.) helps provide savings of many thousands of dollars per year.

I don't know why a land based system is not used for all civilian
positioning anyway. It would be much cheaper than sending satellites
into orbit... and black spots could be eliminated as they are with 
mobile phones.


-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#422770

On 17/06/2017 8:52 AM, HGW... wrote:
> On 16/06/17 05:23, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 5:26:21 AM UTC-5, HGW, DSc. wrote:
>
>> You presume that the authors of the website necessarily get all the
>> details correct? You believe everything that you read on the internet?
>>
>>>> So you know there is a local reference station, we are talking about
>>>> a differential GPS system.
>>>
>>> My course does not have a local reference station.
>>
>> Golf courses are a very competitive business, so most major courses
>> offer DGPS. Maybe not all of the tiny municipal 5-hole courses, but
>> certainly all the big ones.
>>
>> Besides which, DGPS offers important cost savings benefits to the
>> course owners. As one important part of a total water management
>> program, DGPS (along with choice of grasses, advanced irrigation
>> systems, landscape design, mowing strategies, irrigation scheduling
>> etc.) helps provide savings of many thousands of dollars per year.
>
> I don't know why a land based system is not used for all civilian
> positioning anyway. It would be much cheaper than sending satellites
> into orbit... and black spots could be eliminated as they are with
> mobile phones.
>
>

There are plenty of places where mobile phones don't work. Also, large 
areas of ocean are unreachable by anything other than low radio 
frequencies from land-based stations.

There was a world-wide land base system called Omega. It was only 
accurate to within a number of kilometres.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#422794

On 17/06/17 15:23, Sylvia Else wrote:

>> I don't know why a land based system is not used for all civilian
>> positioning anyway. It would be much cheaper than sending satellites
>> into orbit... and black spots could be eliminated as they are with
>> mobile phones.
>>
>>
>
> There are plenty of places where mobile phones don't work.

Yes I realise that but for things like driverless vehicles and even 
sporting events it shouldn't be difficult to cover all relevant areas.

Also, large
> areas of ocean are unreachable by anything other than low radio
> frequencies from land-based stations.

True, but a rudimentary satellite system would suffice there because 
high accuracy is not generally needed.

> There was a world-wide land base system called Omega. It was only
> accurate to within a number of kilometres.

It would be possible to set up very fast and accurate local systems, 
such as on a football field so that every player's position and even 
that of a ball could be known and monitored at any instant. The current 
system can already tell a person how far they have walked. A ground 
based one could do that more accurately and cheaply.

>
> Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#422889

On 17/06/2017 10:40 PM, HGW, DSc. wrote:
> On 17/06/17 15:23, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>>> I don't know why a land based system is not used for all civilian
>>> positioning anyway. It would be much cheaper than sending satellites
>>> into orbit... and black spots could be eliminated as they are with
>>> mobile phones.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> There are plenty of places where mobile phones don't work.
>
> Yes I realise that but for things like driverless vehicles and even
> sporting events it shouldn't be difficult to cover all relevant areas.
>
> Also, large
>> areas of ocean are unreachable by anything other than low radio
>> frequencies from land-based stations.
>
> True, but a rudimentary satellite system would suffice there because
> high accuracy is not generally needed.

How would you envisage that the rudimentary satellite system would work?

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#422941

On 18/06/17 19:57, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 17/06/2017 10:40 PM, HGW, DSc. wrote:

>>>>
>>>
>>> There are plenty of places where mobile phones don't work.
>>
>> Yes I realise that but for things like driverless vehicles and even
>> sporting events it shouldn't be difficult to cover all relevant areas.
>>
>> Also, large
>>> areas of ocean are unreachable by anything other than low radio
>>> frequencies from land-based stations.
>>
>> True, but a rudimentary satellite system would suffice there because
>> high accuracy is not generally needed.
> 
> How would you envisage that the rudimentary satellite system would work?

Rudimentary satellites, of course. Same what we have now but not so 
accurate. Twenty metre resolution would be ample.

> Sylvia.


-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web