I read it took less than a week to discover how to unravel the GLONASS military
signals after they were turned on...
--
> This approach is known as “security through obscurity”, and is deprecated
> in the professional of information security. What one invents, another can
> dis
On 4/10/17 2:08 PM, Eric Scace wrote:
This approach is known as “security through obscurity”, and is deprecated in
the professional of information security. What one invents, another can
discover.
The most secure systems use well-documented algorithms with open-source
software — widely
depend how much in-band loss could you afford it is relative easy to
make cavity filters if you have a network analyzer available
73
Alex
On 4/10/2017 9:11 AM, Attila Kinali wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 18:13:48 -0400
Bob kb8tq wrote:
The beauty of the system would be that you don't need a S
This approach is known as “security through obscurity”, and is deprecated in
the professional of information security. What one invents, another can
discover.
The most secure systems use well-documented algorithms with open-source
software — widely scrutinized for bugs or implants, and th
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 09:00:17 -0400
Bob kb8tq wrote:
> >
> > Only if you *need* the Galileo E5.
>
> The other point with E5 is the nature of the data on the various sub signals.
> Galileo has three classes of service and only one of them is free (open).
Yes. Thats why we do not talk about E6,
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 07:00:27 +0200
Magnus Danielson wrote:
> God Morgon Attila,
>
> On 04/09/2017 10:28 PM, Attila Kinali wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:58:11 -0700
> > jimlux wrote:
> >
> > The beauty of the system would be that you don't need a SAW filter
> > at all. If the input stage (LNA
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 08:08:10 +0100
"David J Taylor" wrote:
> Thanks for that pointer! Most interesting. I wonder whether anyone has an
> updated document detailing the different systems and their current state, as
> that information is approaching 10 years old?
As far as I am aware of, that
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 18:13:48 -0400
Bob kb8tq wrote:
> > The beauty of the system would be that you don't need a SAW filter
> > at all. If the input stage (LNA + mixer) has a high enough dynamic
> > range, then the (first) IF filer alone can remove all those out of
> > band interference.
>
> Why w
Hi,
On 04/10/2017 03:00 PM, Bob kb8tq wrote:
Hi
On Apr 10, 2017, at 1:00 AM, Magnus Danielson
wrote:
God Morgon Attila,
On 04/09/2017 10:28 PM, Attila Kinali wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:58:11 -0700
jimlux wrote:
The beauty of the system would be that you don't need a SAW filter
at all.
Hi Bob,
> It is a bit unclear what the third
> band would add other than a "cool factor"
Even quicker RTK convergence.
http://www.navipedia.net/index.php/Carrier_phase_ambiguity_fixing_with_three_frequencies
--
Björn
___
time-nuts mailing l
Hi
> On Apr 10, 2017, at 1:00 AM, Magnus Danielson
> wrote:
>
> God Morgon Attila,
>
> On 04/09/2017 10:28 PM, Attila Kinali wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:58:11 -0700
>> jimlux wrote:
>>
>> The beauty of the system would be that you don't need a SAW filter
>> at all. If the input stage (LN
BTW: Rodriguez' PhD thesis[2] (which is the basis of navipedia) gives a very
nice overview of the trade-off's that went into the Galileo signals and
gives a few hints where future GNSS signals could further improve things.
Attila Kinali
[2] "On Generalized Signal Waveforms for Satellite Navigati
God Morgon Attila,
On 04/09/2017 10:28 PM, Attila Kinali wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:58:11 -0700
jimlux wrote:
The beauty of the system would be that you don't need a SAW filter
at all. If the input stage (LNA + mixer) has a high enough dynamic
range, then the (first) IF filer alone can remov
Hi Attila,
On 04/09/2017 10:29 PM, Attila Kinali wrote:
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 10:37:07 +0200
Magnus Danielson wrote:
Also, you don't really need to keep the bands fully separate in their
mixed-down form, since they do not correlate except for the P(Y), but
keeping enough frequency difference, su
> On Apr 9, 2017, at 4:29 PM, Attila Kinali wrote:
>
> On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 08:27:58 -0400
> Bob kb8tq wrote:
>
>> Galileo E5 is a bit of a strange case. It’s really E5a and E5b.
>> You can either grab it all as one giant signal or as two separate signals.
>> You may (or may not) care about the
HI
> On Apr 9, 2017, at 4:28 PM, Attila Kinali wrote:
>
> On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:58:11 -0700
> jimlux wrote:
>
>>> The advantage of such a system would be that there is only a single
>>> path through the system for all signals, especially through the filters.
>>> Thus the variability of the dif
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 08:27:58 -0400
Bob kb8tq wrote:
> Galileo E5 is a bit of a strange case. It’s really E5a and E5b.
> You can either grab it all as one giant signal or as two separate signals.
> You may (or may not) care about the data on E5a or b depending on what you
> are trying to do. Gettin
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 10:37:07 +0200
Magnus Danielson wrote:
> Also, you don't really need to keep the bands fully separate in their
> mixed-down form, since they do not correlate except for the P(Y), but
> keeping enough frequency difference, such that doppler shift does not
> remove correlation
On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:58:11 -0700
jimlux wrote:
> > The advantage of such a system would be that there is only a single
> > path through the system for all signals, especially through the filters.
> > Thus the variability of the differential phase shift between the
> > frequency bands would be si
Hi,
There are many things to be done before attempting the full E5 approach
anyway, so I would not have make it a make or break for a first design.
Cheers,
Magnus
On 04/05/2017 02:27 PM, Bob kb8tq wrote:
Hi
Galileo E5 is a bit of a strange case. It’s really E5a and E5b. You can either
grab
Hi
Galileo E5 is a bit of a strange case. It’s really E5a and E5b. You can either
grab it all as one
giant signal or as two separate signals. You may (or may not) care about the
data on E5a or
b depending on what you are trying to do. Getting the entire very wide signal
likely has some
intere
On 04/05/2017 01:21 AM, Attila Kinali wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 06:55:24 -0700
jimlux wrote:
So those folks were trying to use 1 ADC for all three bands, so they had
to choose a sampling rate that lets them separate the signals later in
software.
But that ADC is a MAX104 - a 1GSPS, 8 bit c
On 4/4/17 4:21 PM, Attila Kinali wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 06:55:24 -0700
jimlux wrote:
So those folks were trying to use 1 ADC for all three bands, so they had
to choose a sampling rate that lets them separate the signals later in
software.
But that ADC is a MAX104 - a 1GSPS, 8 bit converte
On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 06:55:24 -0700
jimlux wrote:
> So those folks were trying to use 1 ADC for all three bands, so they had
> to choose a sampling rate that lets them separate the signals later in
> software.
>
> But that ADC is a MAX104 - a 1GSPS, 8 bit converter - that draws 5 Watts!!!
>
>
24 matches
Mail list logo
