|
Gallileo is emerging as an alternative to GSM. Being a newer implementation of the same working principle, they provide higher precision.
I have nowhere close to an understanding of how Gallileo (/GSM) positioning works. So when a collague of mine claimed that a precision of one meter on earth requires that the position of the satellites are determined with a precision of one meter (or preferaby better). If you are triangulating between three signals, and some astronauts were out there and pushed each of the three satellites one meter to the south, your Gallileo (/GSM) reading would be 1 meter wrong.
From simle high school geometry, this argument sounds very plausible. But is it really true, that meter and sub-meter precision location is dependent on a similar precision positioning of the satellites?
(Obviously, if you have signals from several satellites, you may do some smoothing to correct for a single off-position satellite. The question is whether the precision of the positioning directly depends on the satellite positioning, on the same scale.)
|
|
|
|
|
Who owns it?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
You are asking about the Gallileo positioning system, I presume?
The European Union has an agency called the European GNSS Agency[^]. The satellite network was set up by the European Space Agency in cooperation with the EU, but ESA is a separate organization, not tied to the EU, and I don't know if they have any sort of ownership to Gallileo.
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers. I'll ask around.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
As far as I (partly, and probably wrong) understand it, it is more the way the signal speed, how long it takes to get from the satellites to your device with a precise clock, that will determine the precision of the position.
But hey, nothing prevent you to google it.
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
No - the accuracy of the satellite position is very important. Yes - the algorithm basically does do ranging using the contents of the GPS message (precise clock and position - the receiver then uses its clock to integrate multiple signals to determine its position on earth) as well as using phase of the signal to further increase accuracy. Using dual frequency allows for cancellation of a lot of atmospheric noise in the signal as well (for higher end dual frequency receivers).
The current GPS satellites are usually positioned to < 1m although they are not guaranteed to be that accurate (I think it is somewhere around 7 meters). If you post process the data using updated ephemeris (orbital positions) you can reduce that even further.
As for Galileo - well I have been waiting for it for 30 years now... 
I, for one, like Roman Numerals.
|
|
|
|
|
the satellites first have to find their own individual position relative to fixed/known Earth fixed location beacons? Whitehouse is A, Pentagon is B, Al Gores house is C ... triangles, signal time, blah blah: I am here! Yeah stuff on Earth moves about too, so throw in a D, E, F ... it'll figure out what moved. (As long as someone doesn't shove all the beacons 1m to the left position should be pretty close.
The same way 2 or more satellites pinpoint your unknown location they first each pinpoint themslves based on Earth bound reference locations. (Vantage gives them line of sight to many.)
Same as someone called you looking for directions, you look around, "I'm at Billies Bar opposite the Post Office, where are you?" Them, "I'm at ..." You (knowing they can't see BB or the PO), "OK, head north on xx..."
Accuracy, yeah latency, atomic clocks ... still going to be air temperature [layers], clouds, even where the Sun is and what mood it's in at the time - the more [pref closer] points it can reference the more it can defactor a lot of that too.
Apparently one of the hardest things to fix is the satellites wobbling. Yeah they got gyro's and all that, but slow wobbles (thrown in harmonics...) are hard to measure while still discounting sensor noise and ...
|
|
|
|
|
Then add the fact that it's the precision for public use that's at one meter. The encrypted precision is down to millimeters.
|
|
|
|
|
If I understand this right: Then even the position of the satellite must be determined with millimeter precision. Correct?
Those satellite navigation systems are what I find most impressing of all sorts of technology!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not quite that good. Stand alone P-code is <10m, with corrections it is <2m.
I, for one, like Roman Numerals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kinematic position ing is a much different beast than the simple real time single point positioning done in your phone or car.
I, for one, like Roman Numerals.
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed it is, but it's also real time. So the only reason we don't use it in our cars and phones is that it's encrypted and costs money.
But I remember the first GPS I had, the accuracy was 100 m.
My current phone has 3 m. which is more than enough for any task I need it for.
|
|
|
|
|
Too many people, in my opinion too is eager to screan out "Are you completely clueless? Don't you know that ..."
The last week, the victims of such attacks have been those referring to the Corona virus attack as a "flu". "What a fool you are - the Corona thing is NOT a flu!"¨
I didn't know that myself until looked it up in Wikipedia (however reliable that source is ...), learnig of the four classes of "influenza viruses" (or "viri", for those with a classical education). What Wikipedia did NOT explain is why these four classes of viri has been elevated to the sole position of influenzing our health. With a "z". Because the list of symptoms of being influenced (with a "c") by Corona viruses, or a crowd of others, is so similar that even a doctor could not off hand tell that "These are Corona symptom, not influenza symptoms".
I fully understand that influenza is caused by a specific group of viri. What I don't understand is why the effect of this virus group on human health is separate out and labeled "influenza", when other virus groups have very much of the same effects, which are not called "influenza".
Could anyone explain this to a person with next to nothing background in medical theory?
Hopefully with something more informative than "... because they are causes by viri with other signatures"!
|
|
|
|
|
I dunno - but I wish my anti-virus scanner picked 'em up a bit earlier...
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Your virus scanner may be confusing it with a Mexican beer (Corona Light.) It wouldn't ban a beer, now would it?
|
|
|
|
|
Cp-Coder wrote: It wouldn't ban a beer,
In the case of Corona Light it's tempting
|
|
|
|
|
You've basically defined it above - influenza is a disease caused by the influenza virus, just as smallpox is caused by the smallpox virus, etc. While coronaviruses lead to similar symptoms, the coronaviruses aren't related to the influenza virus. Therefore, it's not an influenza.
So, basically it's just a definition issue. Disease was defined as being caused by these organisms; this isn't caused by those organisms, therefore, "something else".
To muddy the waters further, the "common cold" is caused by a whack of virus types, including coronaviruses.
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, influenza is causes by influenzsa viruses. Wikiepedia told me that.
You could say the same about fevers "You silly fool - that's not an xxx fever, it is an yyy fever, don't you know?"
Sure you could give every source of fever its name. If the symptoms are the same, and the treatemnent (or lack of treatment) is the same, it is sort of understandable that common man views it as the same, isn't it? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, then it is a duck. At least in the view of common man.
It is a lot more comforting to hear that "Well ... we drew a dividing line between flu and non-flu viruses; it was kind of arbitrary and we could, in principle, have included a larger group", compared to "You silly fool - don't you even know the difference between flu and non-flu viruses??".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flu predates modern medicine; so does it's naming.
The word influenza, however, wasn’t used to describe a disease until many centuries later. In 1357, people called an epidemic in Florence, Italy influenza di freddo, which translates to “cold influence,” referring to the disease’s possible cause.
In 1414, French chroniclers used similar terms to describe an epidemic that affected up to 100,000 people in Paris. They said it originated from vent puant et tout plein de froidure, or a “smelly and cold wind.”
Another fun part on that page;
History.com wrote: Scientists later discovered that H. influenzae causes many types of infections—including pneumonia and meningitis—but not influenza.
I never learned to distinguish between common cold and the flu. I get flu-shots against the common cold for all I know.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
The common cold is a rhinovirus infection, flu an influenza virus.
"'Do what thou wilt...' is to bid Stars to shine, Vines to bear grapes, Water to seek its level; man is the only being in Nature that has striven to set himself at odds with himself."
—Aleister Crowley
|
|
|
|
|
It's because of the medical definition of what an influenza is.
That's because it's a medical definition, so it's stupid, and doesn't meet the stringent developer-level definition of medical things.
e.g. "parts of the human body that have a hinge" are, obviously, the same thing, according to developers, but doctors don't see knees, elbows, and jaws as being the same thing.
Doctors are idiots, eh?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Seems like you didn't understand the question. Let me make an analogy:
Lots of media, both printed and electronic, influences my political opinions. Then the political analysts start talking about the influenzing (with 'z') media. I learn that 'influenzing' media are TV, FB and Flickr. Newspapers, radio and email campains and others, are influencing media.
I ask around: What is the real difference between influencing and influenzing my political ideas?
The answer I get is essentially: Influencing is what you get from influencing media, influenzing you get from influenzing media.
Well, of course, but what set influenzing media apart from influencing media?
Influenzing media are those influenzing you, influencing media influences you, you silly fool!
Yes. Circle arguments work because circle arguments work. Therefore I am a silly fool to ask. It is a matter of definition. It is defined that way because it is defined that way.
Maybe, if you manage to get to the core it, you will learn that there is some academically defined detail setting TV, FB and Flickr apart from the others, such as the image/text ratio combined with the degree of interaction. Or something else. Of course these aspects are related to how the media affect my opinions, but why are those selected as criteria for creating this special group of 'influenzing' media? You could have groped by so many other criteria!
Same with the flu. A flu is caused by an influenza virus, and they are defined as influenza viruses because they cause a flu. That is the trivial, circular part. If the corona virus had been covered by the definition of an influenza virus, it would have caused a flu as well. The list of corona symptoms are very similar to the list of flu symptoms, so common man would find it quite natural.
Asking why the definition of influenza viruses cover those four (groups of) viruses, but not corona and others, is NOT to suggest that "doctors are idiots"!
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
