gpsd-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: RINEX update


From: John Ackermann N8UR
Subject: Re: RINEX update
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 22:06:11 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1

Hi Gary --

I think we're both on the same page except for my possible
misunderstanding of the point below.

On 4/29/20 8:42 PM, Gary E. Miller wrote:

>> 3.  Both files wrote at 30 second intervals, but the convbin sequence
>> is at 29 and 59 seconds, so apparently the timetags do *not* have to
>> be at the 00 and 30 integer second points, at least for NRCan.
> 
> I disagree.  I think your data may show the opposite.
> 
> The convbin 29.9940000 is pretty much 30.
> The gpsrines 00.9940000 is pretty much 31.
> 
> Is the PPP needs 30, then gpsrinex is not providing that.
> 
> I will look into that.

I thought it was believed at the beginning of this conversation that the
timetags had to be either 00 or 30, and had to be integers.

If you look just at the integer part, then gpsrinex is closer.  If you
look at the full value, then gpsconv is closer (and gpsrinex rounds to a
full second higher).

NRCan doesn't seem to think the fractional part is a problem, so that
would make your hunch seem likely that gpsrinex is out of sync by a
second, and that may be throwing the processing off.

Thanks,
John





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]