Harlan Stenn wrote:
ntp *does* a fit/figure of the expected needed adjustment - your
sentence implies that it does not (at least that's how it reads to me).
No it doesn't. It is basically a feedback controller.
If you take a modern central heating controller, which varies the output
by var
unruh wrote:
His hypothesis is that you can only measure the time offset to within a
second. No idea why.
It is not a hypothesis. It a human scale example, representative of
simple use of digital watch (without interpolation etc.).
___
questions
On 08/28/11 01:47, David J Taylor wrote:
> That's the FCC in the US, Bill, not the UK. Allowing a high-power
> signal on an adjacent frequency to GPS may well block GPS if it is
> allowed to go ahead. The UK GPS events are one-off military tests, like
> every country likely carries out.
>
> An e
On 08/28/11 06:53, David Woolley wrote:
> Harlan Stenn wrote:
>
>>
>> ntp *does* a fit/figure of the expected needed adjustment - your
>> sentence implies that it does not (at least that's how it reads to me).
>
> No it doesn't. It is basically a feedback controller.
>
> If you take a modern ce
On 2011-08-27, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> It depends on your definition of "truly sync up".
>
> With a "good" drift file and good servers where you use iburst, it takes
> about 11 seconds for ntpd to sync up and track the time.
That 11 second figure was for a warm restart of ntpd on a running (and
st
"Brian Utterback" wrote in message
news:4e5a2a83.6030...@oracle.com...
[]
According to the FCC info, the problem is due to old GPS units not
sufficiently filtering out the adjacent bands that were previously
empty. Since the bands are currently empty, I am not so sure that it is
only older unit
David writes:
> Putting anything powerful and widespread next to a weak-signal
> satellite band in use by consumer appliances is just plain crazy
> planning, in fact it's a complete lack of planning!
Shipping products lacking adequate filtering for adjacent band
interference just because those ban
John Hasler wrote:
Shipping products lacking adequate filtering for adjacent band
interference just because those bands are not presently in use is just
plain bad engineering.
The new adjacent channel signal could be arbitrarily strong. You have
to make some assumptions,
__
On 08/28/11 11:23, David J Taylor wrote:
> "Brian Utterback" wrote in message
> news:4e5a2a83.6030...@oracle.com...
> []
>> According to the FCC info, the problem is due to old GPS units not
>> sufficiently filtering out the adjacent bands that were previously
>> empty. Since the bands are current
On 2011-08-28, John Hasler wrote:
> David writes:
>> Putting anything powerful and widespread next to a weak-signal
>> satellite band in use by consumer appliances is just plain crazy
>> planning, in fact it's a complete lack of planning!
>
> Shipping products lacking adequate filtering for adjace
I wrote:
> Shipping products lacking adequate filtering for adjacent band
> interference just because those bands are not presently in use is just
> plain bad engineering.
David writes:
> The new adjacent channel signal could be arbitrarily strong. You have
> to make some assumptions,
The consum
"Brian Utterback" wrote in message
news:4e5aa449.3090...@oracle.com...
[]
There are two sides with different figures. The GPS industry says that
500,000,000 units would be affected. The company LightSquared says it is
really 200,000. The DOD standards for GPS receivers issued in 2008 says
that
"John Hasler" wrote in message
news:87pqjpzei4@thumper.dhh.gt.org...
David writes:
Putting anything powerful and widespread next to a weak-signal
satellite band in use by consumer appliances is just plain crazy
planning, in fact it's a complete lack of planning!
Shipping products lacking
Brian,
See the release notes for the latest distribution in the online
documentation.
There has been a bit of facebook engineering in this discussion. For the
real story, see the How NTP Works pages in the latest online documentation.
Dave
Brian Utterback wrote:
On 08/28/11 06:53, David
14 matches
Mail list logo
