![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
peter writes:
This indicates a basic lack of understanding of GPS technology. It reveals exactly the opposite. That's how GPS determines position. The GPS receiver never deals with measurement of any angles nor with triangulation. What is measured are the precise times of arrival of the signals from the satellites. Surprising though it may be, those "precise times of arrival" are the sides of a triangle. Since the satellites encode the signals with timing information from their sychronized atomic clocks and also send detailed orbital data to define their own positions, the receiver is able to determine the relative distances to the various satellites based on the speed of light/radio and the observed relative signal delays. Using this distance information together with the known positions of the satellites then allows for a determination of the position of the receiver. Note that this never involves a measurement of any angles. Actually it does. The arrival times define spheres in 3D space around the satellites (the geoid can also be used as a reference sphere). The intersections of these spheres effectively isolate the position of the receiver. It's just a fancy version of good old triangulation, and it works very well. Unfortunately, however, it is optimized for lateral positioning, not vertical positioning. To achieve the same vertical accuracy as lateral accuracy, a much higher measurement precision is required. For this reason, vertical measurement accuracy is very poor. It is true that altitude measurements are generally somewhat less accurate than horizontal position measurements due to the basic geometry of receiving satellite signals from only the satellites that are above you. More than "somewhat" less accurate: they are usually unusable, certainly for aviation. My long-term evaluation of GPS altitude accuracy has shown that I get values within 35' of accurately surveyed altitudes at least 95% of the time ever since Selective Availability was turned off. How were you able to accurately survey your altitude in the air? So from a technical standpoint GPS altitudes these days are pretty good although some care should be taken to check the actual satellite geometry and reception at the time of any critical measurements. It's hard to do that in the air. However, there are good reasons why barometric measurements are used instead for aviation to ensure consistency and uniform procedures. The main reason is that it's more accurate. GPS altitude data is so poor and so variable that I've given up using it even on the ground. It's almost never anywhere near surveyed altitudes, and it drifts all over the place. Indeed, you can watch it change as you stand still on the ground, and that's with SA turned off. I definitely would not want to depend on that in the air. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
terminology questions: turtledeck? cantilever wing? | Ric | Home Built | 2 | September 13th 05 09:39 PM |
I Hate Radios | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 9 | June 6th 05 05:39 PM |
(sorta OT) Free Ham Radio Course | RST Engineering | Piloting | 43 | January 24th 05 08:05 PM |
1944 Aerial War Comes to Life in Radio Play | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | March 25th 04 10:57 PM |
Ham Radio In The Airplane | Cy Galley | Owning | 23 | July 8th 03 03:30 AM |