On Mon 2005-09-26T10:27:11 -0400, John.Cowan hath writ:
In addition, since GPS time is TAI - 19s, the GPS-UTC difference will
eventually overflow any fixed-sized transmission packet (if transmitted
as a delta or as a table, it makes no difference in the end).
Yes, but (as already mentioned)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Allen writes:
The inclusion of calendar year is an interesting addition to the
original week-based scheme. The week-based scheme was perhaps chosen
while noting that the week remained intact when Pope Gregory (and
then, eventually, all the protestants)
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rob Seaman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: The question is whether at least 20 minutes (presuming this to be
: accurate) is intrinsic to the system design or is rather a result of
: poor implementation by some receiver manufacturers.
A cold GPS receiver takes
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tom Van Baak writes:
I am wondering, though,
if anyone knows of an example of a GPS receiver
that caches the delta value from the last power-up?
It seems to me this would take care of the delay in
all but the most extreme cases.
Most receivers will cache the almanac
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tom Van Baak [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: In addition, since GPS time is TAI - 19s, the GPS-UTC difference will
: eventually overflow any fixed-sized transmission packet (if transmitted
: as a delta or as a table, it makes no difference in the end).
:
:
A cold GPS receiver takes about 20 minutes to get the almanac data
from the GPS constellation. It is intrinsic to GPS that this is the
case. You cannot get around this.
It's easy to solve that if the application requires it.
You could get the almanac from an external source;
such as another
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tom Van Baak [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Too much is made of the overflow. Fields rollover all
: the time in real life and it's often a simple engineering
: matter to take this into account. Not sure I would call
: it cheating. We get by fine with just 7
But a GPS receiver which uses the current leap second
offset (UTC against GPS time) to help guess which 1024
week period it is in will _eventually_ not work quite
right.
I guess that begs the question - which of the hundred
GPS receiver manufacturers actually use the LS field
in the UTC
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: In my understanding the GPS system
: itself handles leap seconds pretty well, almost optimally.
One could say that GPS handles them perfectly, in that they do not
exist at all in the GPS time scale. However, GPS'
