In message <7E47414354@knersus.nanoteq.co.za> "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.
Regards,
--
Tony - G3SKR / W2TG email: tgold@panix.com
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|