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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #381517 > unrolled thread

Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system

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

Contents

  Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 08:18 -0700
    Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-04-13 08:25 -0700
    Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 10:53 -0700
      Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-13 23:06 +0200
        Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-13 17:36 -0400
          Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 21:05 -0700
            Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 13:15 -0700
          Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 13:11 -0700
        Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 13:07 -0700
          Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 21:10 -0700
          Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-15 20:41 +0200
            Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-15 15:00 -0700
              Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-15 21:36 -0700
                Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-15 22:23 -0700
                  Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-16 10:28 +0200
                    Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 02:59 -0700
                    Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 03:50 -0700
              Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-16 09:51 +0200
                Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 22:43 -0700
                  Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 00:35 -0700
                    Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 22:05 -0700
                      Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 22:24 -0700
                  Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-17 09:53 +0200
                    Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 22:10 -0700
                      Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-18 11:42 +0200
                        Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-18 02:57 -0700
                          Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-18 04:53 -0700
                            Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-18 05:07 -0700
                              Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-18 06:00 -0700
                                Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-18 23:19 -0700
                                  Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-19 04:47 -0700
                        Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 10:37 -0700
                          Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-18 13:19 -0500
                            Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 13:45 -0700
                              Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 15:51 -0700
                                Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 23:07 -0700
                                  Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 05:14 -0700
                                    Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 22:58 -0700
                                      Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-20 11:29 +0200
                                      Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 19:29 -0700
                                        Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 21:45 -0700
                                          Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 23:07 -0700
                                            Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-22 09:15 +1000
                                              Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 21:21 -0700
                                                Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-22 19:19 +1000
                                                  Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 03:28 -0700
                                                  Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-22 15:25 +0000
                                            Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 23:44 -0700
                                              Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 03:15 -0700
                                                Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-22 04:06 -0700
                                          Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 21:05 -0700
                                  Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-19 14:20 +0000
                                    Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 22:52 -0700
                                      Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-20 15:15 +0000
                          Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-18 20:27 +0200
                            Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-19 06:14 +1000
                              Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-19 14:13 +0200
                                Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-19 05:19 -0700
        Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 09:29 -0700
          Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 22:52 -0700
            Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 00:15 -0700
          Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-17 22:42 +0200
            Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 18:57 -0700
              Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 22:22 -0700
                Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 22:27 -0700
                  Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 22:43 -0700
                    Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 12:12 -0500
              Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-18 10:59 +0200
                Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 21:18 -0700
            Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 22:18 -0700
              Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-18 10:41 +0200
                Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-18 02:45 -0700
              Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-18 12:44 -0500
                Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-19 06:20 +1000
                Re: Koobee Wooblee's fantasies about the GPS system Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 13:45 -0700

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

#382031

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > The GPS satellites must synchronize their calendar times to each other
> > and not necessary with the ground.  The rest is irrelevant.  <shrug>
>
> > The bottom line is that since each GPS satellite needs to synchronize
> > its calendar time with a standard satellite calendar time that one
> > special satellite holds (not any of the ground stations), it must be
> > done so after deployment in which this satellite would know its offset
> > time and short fall in clock frequency.  Thus, pre-adjust a satellite
> > with a pre-defined number just does not make any fvcking sense.  It is
> > just stupidity.  <shrug>
>
> 1) Prior to Block IIR, GPS satellites were *incapable* of the sort of
>    inter-satellite communications that would enable them to mutually
>    sync with each other.

So what if these first generation of satellites cannot synchronize among themselves and so what if they need the ground stations' help.  This means these satellites do not offer better accuracy than the later generations, and that should not be construded as GR needs to be considered in the design of GPS.  <shrug>

> [rest of redundant and irrelevant rantings snipped]

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

#382038

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 11:45:19 PM UTC-5, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:

> >
> > 1) Prior to Block IIR, GPS satellites were *incapable* of the sort of
> >    inter-satellite communications that would enable them to mutually
> >    sync with each other.
> 
> So what if these first generation of satellites cannot synchronize among 
> themselves and so what if they need the ground stations' help.  This means 
> these satellites do not offer better accuracy than the later generations, and 
> that should not be construded as GR needs to be considered in the design of 
> GPS.  <shrug>

Well now. We're making progress. You *finally* acknowledge that Block I 
satellites, which ran usefully over a 14 year period, could not engage in 
mutual sync with other satellites but relied on ground control for time 
and position information.
 
Let's now consider two items that you snipped.

7) The clocks in all GPS satellites  incorporate a correction calculated using 
   general  relativity. 
8) The clocks of the  Control Segment worldwide depend on the GPS satellites to 
   disseminate time from the  USNO. 

A) Imagine that you are an air traffic controller in a fantasy world.
B) In the fantasy world that I envision, all airplanes run on "airplane time" 
   which basically means that their clocks run through 24 hours in 20 hours by
   the airport clock.
C) As airplanes pass over Schriever Air Force Base, they regularly indulge in
   a twenty minute conversation with the air traffic controllers there.
D) At some point or other in their conversation, the tower man at Shriever AFB 
   instructs the pilot of Flight 2315 to set his clock to 13:37:00.000
E) It is about a five hour flight between Shriever AFB and your airport.
F) As Flight 2315 enters communications range with your control tower, you ask
   the pilot, "Hey, what time is it?"
G) The pilot answers, "The time is 19:34:22.327"
H) What time do you set the airport clocks to?

Instead of letting airplanes run on "airplane time", would it not be better if
you had them carry clocks that run on the same time that the airport and all the
rest of the world uses?

If you knew on the basis of the General Theory of Airplanes that "airplane time"
is 20 percent faster than "airport time", could you not ask the pilots to carry
clocks that are set to run through 24 "airplane hours" in 28 hours 48 minutes as
the pilots customarily measure time?

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

#382067

On 21/04/16 16:07, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:

> C) As airplanes pass over Schriever Air Force Base, they regularly indulge in
>     a twenty minute conversation with the air traffic controllers there.
> D) At some point or other in their conversation, the tower man at Shriever AFB
>     instructs the pilot of Flight 2315 to set his clock to 13:37:00.000
> E) It is about a five hour flight between Shriever AFB and your airport.
> F) As Flight 2315 enters communications range with your control tower, you ask
>     the pilot, "Hey, what time is it?"
> G) The pilot answers, "The time is 19:34:22.327"
> H) What time do you set the airport clocks to?
>
> Instead of letting airplanes run on "airplane time", would it not be better if
> you had them carry clocks that run on the same time that the airport and all the
> rest of the world uses?

Idiot! The basic aim of timekeeping generally, is to try to ensure that 
all clocks of every type and purpose EVERYWHERE are in absolute synch 
with each other as well as an accepted standard (corrected of course for 
different time zones).

Fine tuning GPS clocks is difficult because the travel times of their 
signals is dependent on their orbits and information about the orbits 
themselves is largely derived from the travel times of the signals.

Consequently, there is quite a lot of empirical fiddling to get things 
just right before each clock is ready for use.
Fortunately, the stupid 'GR correction' is easily removed and causes no 
harm.

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

#382085

On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 6:15:29 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote:

> Idiot! The basic aim of timekeeping generally, is to try to ensure that 
> all clocks of every type and purpose EVERYWHERE are in absolute synch 
> with each other as well as an accepted standard (corrected of course for 
> different time zones).
> 
> Fine tuning GPS clocks is difficult because the travel times of their 
> signals is dependent on their orbits and information about the orbits 
> themselves is largely derived from the travel times of the signals.
> 
> Consequently, there is quite a lot of empirical fiddling to get things 
> just right before each clock is ready for use.
> Fortunately, the stupid 'GR correction' is easily removed and causes no 
> harm.

Sorry, even amateur timekeepers know that your arguments are a complete 
nonstarter: http://www.leapsecond.com/great2005/tour/

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

#382097

On 22/04/16 14:21, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 6:15:29 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote:
>
>> Idiot! The basic aim of timekeeping generally, is to try to ensure that
>> all clocks of every type and purpose EVERYWHERE are in absolute synch
>> with each other as well as an accepted standard (corrected of course for
>> different time zones).
>>
>> Fine tuning GPS clocks is difficult because the travel times of their
>> signals is dependent on their orbits and information about the orbits
>> themselves is largely derived from the travel times of the signals.
>>
>> Consequently, there is quite a lot of empirical fiddling to get things
>> just right before each clock is ready for use.
>> Fortunately, the stupid 'GR correction' is easily removed and causes no
>> harm.
>
> Sorry, even amateur timekeepers know that your arguments are a complete
> nonstarter: http://www.leapsecond.com/great2005/tour/

Go away troll!

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

#382100

On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 4:19:36 AM UTC-5, HGW wrote:
> On 22/04/16 14:21, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:

> > Sorry, even amateur timekeepers know that your arguments are a complete
> > nonstarter: http://www.leapsecond.com/great2005/tour/
> 
> Go away troll!

Hey, *you* are the one who butted in!!!

The atoms of the cesium beam, by the way, are weightless as they cross the
Ramsey cavity in a parabolic, free-fall trajectory.

http://www.sandfordfleming.ca/photos/f4040_25_cesiumclockinside_f_g.jpg

They are just as much weightless with the clock on the ground as they are with
the clock in space.

Rubidium atoms in gas reference cells, on the other hand, are not in free fall.
https://www.thorlabs.de/images/TabImages/ReferenceCellSetup.gif

So why is the same GR correction applicable to both cesium beam clocks and
rubidium gas cell clocks?

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

#382111

HGW <HGW@....> writes:

>On 22/04/16 14:21, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 6:15:29 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote:
>>
>>> Idiot! The basic aim of timekeeping generally, is to try to ensure that
>>> all clocks of every type and purpose EVERYWHERE are in absolute synch
>>> with each other as well as an accepted standard (corrected of course for
>>> different time zones).
>>>
>>> Fine tuning GPS clocks is difficult because the travel times of their
>>> signals is dependent on their orbits and information about the orbits
>>> themselves is largely derived from the travel times of the signals.
>>>
>>> Consequently, there is quite a lot of empirical fiddling to get things
>>> just right before each clock is ready for use.
>>> Fortunately, the stupid 'GR correction' is easily removed and causes no
>>> harm.
>>
>> Sorry, even amateur timekeepers know that your arguments are a complete
>> nonstarter: http://www.leapsecond.com/great2005/tour/

>Go away troll!

What's the matter, Ralph? You don't like the fact that these days, even
ordinary people can go prove that GR is correct after all?

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

#382092

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > So what if these first generation of satellites cannot synchronize
> > among themselves and so what if they need the ground stations' help.
> > This means these satellites do not offer better accuracy than the
> > later generations, and that should not be construded as GR needs to
> > be considered in the design of GPS.  <shrug>
>
> Well now. We're making progress. You *finally* acknowledge that Block
> I satellites, which ran usefully over a 14 year period, could not
> engage in mutual sync with other satellites but relied on ground
> control for time and position information.

This is the problem, PD.  You love to make up shit in your discussions beating an off-topic subject to death.  <shrug>

> [rest of fantasy farce snipped]

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

#382099

On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 1:44:08 AM UTC-5, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > Koobee Wublee wrote:
> 
> > > So what if these first generation of satellites cannot synchronize
> > > among themselves and so what if they need the ground stations' help.
> > > This means these satellites do not offer better accuracy than the
> > > later generations, and that should not be construded as GR needs to
> > > be considered in the design of GPS.  <shrug>
> >
> > Well now. We're making progress. You *finally* acknowledge that Block
> > I satellites, which ran usefully over a 14 year period, could not
> > engage in mutual sync with other satellites but relied on ground
> > control for time and position information.
> 
> This is the problem, PD.  You love to make up shit in your discussions beating an off-topic subject to death.  <shrug>
> 
> > [rest of fantasy farce snipped]

It's very *on-topic*, Koobee.

1) GPS satellite clocks are *all* corrected by an amount calculated using 
   general relativity.
2) This correction is required for SV clocks to able to disseminate time
   to clocks of the Control Segment 
3) Control Segment ground stations need accurate time to function.
4) Decades of experience has shown that the correction calculated on the basis
   of general relativity has been within 0.1% of the actual value required by
   each satellite.
5) You have an unfortunate tendency to snip when you are faced with arguments
   that you don't know how to answer.
6) You don't like being shown to be a fool with simple arguments that you can't
   confront with pages of phony, misapplied math.

So now. When the pilot says that "The time is 19:34:22.327", what time do you
set the airport clocks to? 

Do you have an answer, or are you snipping and running away?

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

#382101

W dniu piątek, 22 kwietnia 2016 12:15:55 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase 
> 1) GPS satellite clocks are *all* corrected by an amount calculated using 
>    general relativity.

A lie, as expected from relativistic trash.
Your Shit's standard *forbids*any* corrections
of atomic clock.

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

#382083

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 11:45:19 PM UTC-5, Koobee Wublee wrote:
 
> > [rest of redundant and irrelevant rantings snipped]

Yep, I figured that you'd snip. You have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE how to calculate 
the divisors for the dual divisor digital PLL frequency synthesizer that I  
diagrammed for you.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8XIf0XcrpOcVTU3R0gtUW5zUXc/view?usp=sharing

OK. Let me give you my answers. You can STILL partially redeem yourself by 
telling me how I calculated them.
 
1) 10.22999999543 MHz  M = 1242740 N = 354043
   Proof: 9192.631770 MHz / 256 * 354043 / 1242740 = 10.22999999543005... MHz

2) 10.22999999542 MHz  M = 8514301 N = 2425631
   Proof: 9192.631770 MHz / 256 * 2425631/ 8514301 = 10.22999999541987... MHz

3) 10.22999999544 MHz  M = 2961353 N = 843657
   Proof: 9192.631770 MHz / 256 * 843657 / 2961353 = 10.22999999543980... MHz

Now that we know the appropriate divisors to use to get an output frequency of 
10.22999999543 MHz, the next task is to build the dividers.

Can you diagram for me the design for a divide-by-1242740 counter using D-type
flip flops such as would have been available in the late 1970s?

Can you diagram for me the design for a divide-by-354043 counter using D-type
flip flops such as would have been available in the late 1970s?

Yes, I *am* heading in a very specific direction in my arguments. Nothing is 
irrelevant, although considerable redundancy is necessary to get through that
stubbornly thick skull of yours.

Let me make this easy for you. 

Can you show me that you can wire up a divide-by-five counter? Because if you
can wire up a divide-by-five, there really isn't much more to wiring up a
divide-by-354043 counter.

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

#381951

Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> writes:

>On Monday, April 18, 2016, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>> On Monday, April 18, 2016, Koobee Wublee wrote:

>> Show us an official publication, official U.S. government website page, or
>> reliable textbook reference that indicates that Block I satellites had the 
>> ability to adjust their clock frequencies. 

>Not even wrong.  Irrelevant.  <shrug>

What?  An inability of the Block I satellites to adjust their clock
frequencies seems *very* relevant to a claim that the satellites adjusted
their clock frequencies to stay in synch with each other.

Maybe you could explain to us how Block I satellites adjusted their clock
frequencies if they couldn't adjust their clock frequencies.

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

#381983

On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 7:21:10 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:

> An inability of the Block I satellites to adjust their clock
> frequencies seems *very* relevant to a claim that the satellites
> adjusted their clock frequencies to stay in synch with each other.

Not really.  How long did they operate?  <shrug>

> Maybe you could explain to us how Block I satellites adjusted their clock
> frequencies if they couldn't adjust their clock frequencies.

Say what?  You are not making any fvcking sense.  <shrug>

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

#382001

Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> writes:

>On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 7:21:10 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:

>> An inability of the Block I satellites to adjust their clock
>> frequencies seems *very* relevant to a claim that the satellites
>> adjusted their clock frequencies to stay in synch with each other.

>Not really.  How long did they operate?  <shrug>

Launch year and decomission year of the 11 Block I GPS satellites

#1 1978-1985
#2 1978-1988
#3 1978-1992
#4 1978-1989, reactivated for a few months in 1990.
#5 1980-1984
#6 1980-1991
#7 Launch failure, 1981
#8 1983-1993
#9 1984-1994
#10 1984-1996
#11 1985-1994

All of them except one (plus one launch failure) exceeded their design
life of 5 years.  One lasted 14 years.

>> Maybe you could explain to us how Block I satellites adjusted their clock
>> frequencies if they couldn't adjust their clock frequencies.

>Say what?  You are not making any fvcking sense.  <shrug>

It is you, not me, who made the silly claim that satellites that cannot
adjust their clock frequencies adjusted their clock frequencies.

Could you please explain to us how they did that?

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

#381906

On 18.04.2016 19:37, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Monday, April 18, 2016, Paul Bulshit Andersen wrote:
(I find Koobee Wublee's childish name calling rather funny. )
>
>> Since the SV clocks _are_ adjusted by -4.4647E-10 before launch,
>
> In the meantime, Paul has admitted that it is essential to build in capability for each SV to adjust its clock frequency.  That means the SV must be able to override this pre-adjusted -4.4647E-10 to whatever is necessary to keep the time calendar of the SV in synchronization with other SV's.  <shrug>
>
>> and since the thus adjusted clocks _do_ stay in sync with GPS-time to
>> better than ~1E-12, it is obvious that if the clocks had not been
>> adjusted before launch, they would be running fast by 4.4647E-10.
>
> If you can change this adjustment in the clock frequency, why the fvck do you even bother to pre-adjust it?  <shrug>
>
>> [rest of crap snipped]
>
> Paul is stupid.  <shrug>

Wow!
The lethal argument! Koobee Wublee wins on knock out!
I am sure the world has noticed his glorious victory!
Well done, Koobee!

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#381911

On 19/04/16 04:27, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 18.04.2016 19:37, Koobee Wublee wrote:

>>
>>> and since the thus adjusted clocks _do_ stay in sync with GPS-time to
>>> better than ~1E-12, it is obvious that if the clocks had not been
>>> adjusted before launch, they would be running fast by 4.4647E-10.
>>
>> If you can change this adjustment in the clock frequency, why the fvck
>> do you even bother to pre-adjust it?  <shrug>
>>
>>> [rest of crap snipped]
>>
>> Paul is stupid.  <shrug>
>
> Wow!
> The lethal argument! Koobee Wublee wins on knock out!
> I am sure the world has noticed his glorious victory!
> Well done, Koobee!

His argument certainly kills all your nonsensical claims. It is likely 
that the first thing the operators do after the clocks are fixed in 
orbit is use the adjustment facility to cancel out the 'GR correction' 
hoax. Fortunately, the GPS system works well in spite of Einstein.

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

#381945

On 18.04.2016 22:14, HGW wrote:
> On 19/04/16 04:27, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> On 18.04.2016 19:37, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>>
>>> Paul is stupid.  <shrug>
>>
>> Wow!
>> The lethal argument! Koobee Wublee wins on knock out!
>> I am sure the world has noticed his glorious victory!
>> Well done, Koobee!
>
> His argument certainly kills all your nonsensical claims. It is likely
> that the first thing the operators do after the clocks are fixed in
> orbit is use the adjustment facility to cancel out the 'GR correction'
> hoax. Fortunately, the GPS system works well in spite of Einstein.

Thanks for making the world observant of the fact that
Ralph Malcom Rabbidge and Koobee Wublee obviously know
how how the GPS works much better than the stupid engineers
and scientists that designed and operates it.

I am sure the world is impressed by these geniuses!

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#381948

W dniu wtorek, 19 kwietnia 2016 14:13:53 UTC+2 użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał:

> Thanks for making the world observant of the fact that
> Ralph Malcom Rabbidge and Koobee Wublee obviously know
> how how the GPS works much better than the stupid engineers
> and scientists that designed and operates it.

It works fine, thanks to "relativistic"
corrections directly FORBIDDEN by The Shit's
standards.

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

#381779

> The Block IIR satellites, which can be frequency adjusted
> in flight, are better than the Block I satellites, so
> these would obviously also work with no in flight adjustment,
> if the "clock offset" is uploaded daily. But the point with
> the in-flight frequency adjustment is to compensate for
> the drift of the frequency standards in order to increase
> the autonomy of the satellites; they can work for a very
> long time with no new upload of "clock offset".

Do you have any details on the frequency synthesizers used in Block II
satellites?

IIRC, Block I frequency synthesizers first put the cesium standard frequency
through an ECL logic prescaler to bring the frequency down to where a TTL logic
divide-by-M counter could work with it. The output of a VCXO was put through
a divide-by-N counter, and the phases of the two counter outputs were compared
and used to adjust the VCXO. 

How do Block II frequency synthesizers work?

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

#381805

On Saturday, April 16, 2016, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:

> Do you have any details on the frequency synthesizers used in Block II
> satellites?

It is a Cs atomic clock with a divider.  You must be really dumb to have not figured it all out.  <shrug>

> IIRC, Block I frequency synthesizers first put the cesium standard
> frequency through an ECL logic prescaler to bring the frequency down
> to where a TTL logic divide-by-M counter could work with it. The
> output of a VCXO was put through a divide-by-N counter, and the phases
> of the two counter outputs were compared and used to adjust the VCXO. 

What's up with that?  You have emphasized on ECL and TTL which is easily considered as fossil in technology.  You really don't know what you are talking about but attempting to make it otherwise by bringing up obsolete technologies that nobody cared anymore.  <shrug>

> How do Block II frequency synthesizers work?

The central requirement is that all GPS satellites (and not necessary any ground stations) must have their calendar times in sync.  To achieve so, each satellite must have capabilities to account for time offset and clock frequency adjustment.  It should be a no fvcking brainer to figure out how Block II frequency synthesizers work.  <shrug>

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

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

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

csiph-web