I do not have any say in it but I voiced the groups concerns to a few affiliates at NIST today. One Senior Researcher told me he has been making an effort for some time now to document all the equipment used related to a research project, adding the standard disclaimer that it was not an endorsement or recommendation. I tried to reach one of the papers author to see if they were comfortable releasing more GPS product data but missed him. I will try again Monday, but it is really up the authors what they feel comfortable with. I will also inquire as to what configuration of GPS they currently use for Time and Freq. Whether they use L1, or L1/L2, Carrier Phase or what the current thinking is of state of the art.
Thomas Knox > Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 00:33:28 +0100 > From: mag...@rubidium.dyndns.org > To: time-nuts@febo.com > Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Anyone Know What The Models Were In This NIST Paper? > > On 10/31/2013 12:14 AM, Jim Lux wrote: > > On 10/30/13 3:46 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> They have learned the hard way that they can't do that easily. They can, > >> if they add the necessary "mentioning of vendor X and their product Y > >> does in no way means an endorsement". I've seen presentations starting > >> with a "non-endorsement statement" so that they can then say "Oh, this > >> is the boxes we have chosen to use", which tends to just render spread > >> of information and sharing of experience amongst the users. > >> > >> I expect them (NIST and other publicly funded institutions) to act like > >> this. It is a bit annoying when you just want to know what they where > >> using, but it's understandable. It is even more understandable as they > >> start to list miss-features of device A, B and C, but not device D. > >> > > > > It works both ways, when you have a device that you're particularly > > proud of, and it performs well in the tests, you want them to say "Jim > > Lux's fabulous device performed orders of magnitude better than all > > other devices tested, particularly the unusually poor performance from > > the device from Magnus Danielson" <grin>. > No need to write that, as it is common knowledge that MD's device is not > only of inferior quality and performance, but the residue of a hedgehog > nest, at best. <grin> > > > > But there are also other forces at work. > > > > There are cases where IEEE and authors were sued because of a paper > > that essentially said that a particular product not only didn't work, > > but that underlying physics guaranteed that it couldn't work. (early > > streamer emission devices, and a paper by Mousa, in particular) > > > > It would be an amusing story, if all the litigation hadn't happened. > > For instance, Mousa reports on one installation where the lightning > > eliminator was completely destroyed by a lightning stroke. > > "The traffic controllers at Tampa saw a flash of light during a storm, > > heard thunder and observed a shower of sparks drop past the tower > > window. A later visit to the rooftop revealed that a part of the charge > > dissipater array of Manufacturer “A” had disappeared." > > > > > > that would tend to drive authors to such circumlocutions as Brand X, etc. > Oh yes. But we do these things over at this side of the pond, without > having the use of the legal system, as seems customary on your side of > the pond. > > Cheers, > Magnus > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.