time-nuts@lists.febo.com

Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement

View all threads

Venus838LPx-T opinions?

MS
Mark Sims
Sat, Jul 23, 2016 5:23 AM

I have implemented support for all of the relevant Venus binary messages.  It's just that I don't have a Venus timing receiver to test the timing receiver specific messages (which are only three messages that control  the self-survey / position hold modes).  Oh, and besides the lack of a binary message with satellite position/signal levels,  there is none that reports the sawtooth error.

Lady Heather's NMEA support is limited to standard NMEA messages that all receivers support (position, date/time, satellite info).  The only "proprietary" NMEA commands that I send are those that can switch a receiver into binary mode.  Receiver binary modes generally allow full control over the receiver.


Maybe I'll wait til Lady Heather has a more complete communication set with this part...

I have implemented support for all of the relevant Venus binary messages. It's just that I don't have a Venus timing receiver to test the timing receiver specific messages (which are only three messages that control the self-survey / position hold modes). Oh, and besides the lack of a binary message with satellite position/signal levels, there is none that reports the sawtooth error. Lady Heather's NMEA support is limited to standard NMEA messages that all receivers support (position, date/time, satellite info). The only "proprietary" NMEA commands that I send are those that can switch a receiver into binary mode. Receiver binary modes generally allow full control over the receiver. ------------------------- Maybe I'll wait til Lady Heather has a more complete communication set with this part...
CS
Charles Steinmetz
Sat, Jul 23, 2016 6:40 AM

Mark wrote:

Oh, and besides the lack of a binary message with satellite position/signal levels,  there is none that reports the sawtooth error.

How in the world can they call it a "timing receiver" if it doesn't even
support sawtooth correction??  Good grief.

Also, I see they claim 6nS accuracy.  That is pretty much exactly 1/2
cycle of the main clock frequency, so +/- 6nS should be the expected
theoretical best possible error envelope WRT the quantization error,
assuming the receiver's timing solution is always perfect.  Are we
supposed to believe they achieve that accuracy in practice, despite all
of the well-known sources of error in GPS timing solutions??

Best regards,

Charles

Mark wrote: > Oh, and besides the lack of a binary message with satellite position/signal levels, there is none that reports the sawtooth error. How in the world can they call it a "timing receiver" if it doesn't even support sawtooth correction?? Good grief. Also, I see they claim 6nS accuracy. That is pretty much exactly 1/2 cycle of the main clock frequency, so +/- 6nS should be the expected theoretical best possible error envelope WRT the quantization error, *assuming the receiver's timing solution is always perfect.* Are we supposed to believe they achieve that accuracy in practice, despite all of the well-known sources of error in GPS timing solutions?? Best regards, Charles
NS
Nick Sayer
Sat, Jul 23, 2016 8:05 AM

The NMEA STI,00 message gives a sawtooth correction. I believe what Mark was saying was that there was no binary message that said so… maybe? I dunno. But the datasheet clearly talks about PPS quantization error compensation:

STI,00 – 1 PPS timing report

An output message, id 0x0, contains information of 1 PPS timing mode, 1 PPS survey length and 1PPS quantization error.

Structure:
$PSTI,00,x,xx,xx *hh<CR><LF>

Example: $PSTI,00,1,1985,-12.4*1E<CR><LF>

Here there’s a table that I’ll try to interpolate because pasting it failed…

the 1 is the PPS timing mode. 0 = PVT, 1 = Survey mode, 2 = Static mode
1985 is the survey length
-12.4 is the PPS quantization error
1E is, of course, the checksum.

On Jul 22, 2016, at 11:40 PM, Charles Steinmetz csteinmetz@yandex.com wrote:

Mark wrote:

Oh, and besides the lack of a binary message with satellite position/signal levels,  there is none that reports the sawtooth error.

How in the world can they call it a "timing receiver" if it doesn't even support sawtooth correction??  Good grief.

Also, I see they claim 6nS accuracy.  That is pretty much exactly 1/2 cycle of the main clock frequency, so +/- 6nS should be the expected theoretical best possible error envelope WRT the quantization error, assuming the receiver's timing solution is always perfect.  Are we supposed to believe they achieve that accuracy in practice, despite all of the well-known sources of error in GPS timing solutions??

Best regards,

Charles


time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

The NMEA STI,00 message gives a sawtooth correction. I believe what Mark was saying was that there was no *binary* message that said so… maybe? I dunno. But the datasheet clearly talks about PPS quantization error compensation: STI,00 – 1 PPS timing report An output message, id 0x0, contains information of 1 PPS timing mode, 1 PPS survey length and 1PPS quantization error. Structure: $PSTI,00,x,xx,xx *hh<CR><LF> Example: $PSTI,00,1,1985,-12.4*1E<CR><LF> Here there’s a table that I’ll try to interpolate because pasting it failed… the 1 is the PPS timing mode. 0 = PVT, 1 = Survey mode, 2 = Static mode 1985 is the survey length -12.4 is the PPS quantization error 1E is, of course, the checksum. > On Jul 22, 2016, at 11:40 PM, Charles Steinmetz <csteinmetz@yandex.com> wrote: > > Mark wrote: > >> Oh, and besides the lack of a binary message with satellite position/signal levels, there is none that reports the sawtooth error. > > How in the world can they call it a "timing receiver" if it doesn't even support sawtooth correction?? Good grief. > > Also, I see they claim 6nS accuracy. That is pretty much exactly 1/2 cycle of the main clock frequency, so +/- 6nS should be the expected theoretical best possible error envelope WRT the quantization error, *assuming the receiver's timing solution is always perfect.* Are we supposed to believe they achieve that accuracy in practice, despite all of the well-known sources of error in GPS timing solutions?? > > Best regards, > > Charles > > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there.