[Top] [All Lists]

[TowerTalk] Radical alternative for pinning beams

To: <>
Subject: [TowerTalk] Radical alternative for pinning beams
From: (Anthony R. Gold)
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 1997 22:03:54 +0100 BST
In message <> "Chris R. Burger" writes:

> Someone else (exactly who is not clear) had written:

It was I <blush> when I wrote:

> > Having two antenna's won't help as the error is not related to poor 
> > reception but to deliberate variations (dithering) applied by DOD to 
> > the clock time sent as part of their Commercial Service.
> Not true.  Remember, if you are trying to check which way your beam 
> is pointed, you only need a relative position difference between the 
> two receivers.  The absolute position indicated by either or both 
> receiver(s) is of no consequence.

I believe that you're making an invalid assumption that the two 
receivers (and BTW the original that I commented on had one receiver 
and two antennas) will show accurate relative positions because the 
dithering will be common.  The fallacy is to assume that two close 
receivers will always use the exact same constellation of SV's for 
their solutions.

A while ago there was a supposedly humorous thread on element fatigue 
and the need to periodically change beam elements.  I've noticed that 
the reflector on my Sommmer XP-807 has indeed developed fatigue, but 
it's mechanical and not electrical and the ends of both sides are now 
drooping. I guess that the flapping in the wind over the 14 months 
it's been up caused the force from the half-elements' weights to 
exceed the tubing's elastic limits and they are now presumably in the 
course of progressive decline :-(  I'm going to try shoving some 
bamboo up inside the tubes to strengthen them.

   Tony - G3SKR / W2TG                   email:

FAQ on WWW:     
Administrative requests:

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>