Hi Tom,
> It that's still not close enough to 0.3 m, is one then forced to use more > expensive multi-frequency (L1/L2) or multi-band (GPS, GLONASS, Galileo) to > achieve this level of precision? If so, how cheaply can one do this? Or is > the learning curve more expensive than just hiring an survey specialist to > make a one-time cm-level measurement for you? > I suspect just L1 would be fine in areas with dense CORS. I have not tried it, but how about this ultra-cheap strategy: 1. obtain L1 observables with a cheap board and cheap patch antenna; convert to RINEX 2. synthesize fake L2 data, using nominal iono conditions, and add it to the RINEX 3. submit to NOAA's rapid static solver, OPUS-RS, which currently accepts only dual-frequency data 4. examine the quality report from OPUS-RS to see if the ambiguities were reliably resolved But this is a bit of a dicey science project; I'd suggest that the researcher borrow a survey receiver for a few days (mild learning curve for the online solver tools) or hire a surveyor (no learning curve). Cheers, Peter _______________________________________________ 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.
