M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: <[email protected]>
Magnus Danielson <[email protected]> writes:
: Hal Murray wrote:
: >>>> Anyone else lose an 18x?
: >
: >>> I lost one a while ago. Similar. It just stopped doing anything
: >>> useful.
: >
: >> Battery failure?
: >
: > I don't think it has a battery inside. That seems like a poor design. Too
: > many reasonable use cases would include sitting in a drawer for extended
: > periods of time.
:
: Providing an RTC has benefits, especially when considering week-rollover
: issues, since when the receiver wakes up it has no idea of date at all,
: pulling in the RTC time and date is a sufficient hint, and adjusting
: with detailed info from the GPS is a trivial extention. Then adjusting
: the RTC is not a hard thing to do every once in a while. The same
: problem could also be solved using EEPROM space. A byte would suffice.
Usually, you're right. There's one case that might make it not
suitable.
Many contracts require spares for all the important gear. Long
storage times makes storing the last known date ineffective. Of
course in this case "long" is on the order of 9-odd years. This may
be good for many applications, but not necessarily ones that have 10
or 15 year deep spares requirements...
I agree that they are not suitable for that type of application.
However, it does not make the battery unsuitable for GPSes as such,
which was the point I was trying to make. How and if this detail springs
to mind for any particular vendor is the issue. A flakey RTC may be more
of a problem than a live one or a dead one.
Cheers,
Magnus
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
