Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2003 8:04 am Post subject: Strange values in SiRF-examples
Hello,
seems like I'm the first one to use this forum. I don't know how I deserved this honour. Anyway:
In the documentations for the SiRF messages, to be found, for instance, at Falcom s website, there are a few examples whose values I don't understand. Take chapter "2.2.21 Navigation Library DGPS Data - Message I.D. 29" of that paper: There is a "Pseudo-range rate correction" in the unit m/s with a value of 1017817771 - that is three times the speed of light. And there's a correction age of 1069547026 seconds given - more than 33 years, where you'd expect just a few seconds or minutes. In fact I received a similar correction age from my EMTAC BTGPS.
Something is strange here. Either there's really a mistake on the manufacturer's side, or I simply don't understand what pseudo-range rate correction and correction age really mean. Can anyone shed a little on this, please? _________________ Best regards
Joined: 11/03/2003 08:29:43 Posts: 64 Location: United Kingdom
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2003 8:04 am Post subject: Strange values in SiRF-examples
Looking at the documentation, it may just be that the default data is old, or more likely it is meant to be scaled i.e. multilply by 10^-6 or similar. Looking at message 28, the figures there do seem to make sense (i.e. a Pseudorange of 24,921,113,696 metres).
If it's not scaled, I'd imagine this data is not 'real' - a correction age of a thousand million seconds would be useless. It would be interesting to see some real data from this message - I may well try it. _________________ G1NTX AFRIN LRPS
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2003 8:04 am Post subject: Strange values in SiRF-examples
Hi Simon,
this is an interpretation of some real data from a sample taken with a PC from an EMTAC BTGPS:
A0 A2 00 1A 1D 00 19 00 E2 01 C0 BE 1A D6 3D 4C CC CD 3F E6 64 73 40 A0 00 00 40 A0 00 00 09 65 B0 B3
A0 A2: Start sequence
00 1A: Message length (26 Byte)
1D: Message ID (29)
00 19: Satellite ID (25)
00 E2: IOD (226)
01: Source (1)
C0 BE 1A D6: Pseudo-range correction (3233684182 m) (*)
3D 4C CC CD: Pseudo-range rate correction (1028443341 m/s) (**)
3F E6 64 73: Correction age (1072063603) (***)
40 A0 00 00: Reserved, they won't tell us what this means
40 A0 00 00: Reserved, they won't tell us what this means
09 65 B0 B3: Checksum and end sequence
(*) They must be kidding: That's 3233684.182 km or more than eight lunar distances.
(**) They must be kidding again: That's 1028443.341 km/s or more than three times the speed of light.
(***)They're kidding all day: The correction age is almost 34 years. If the unit was microseconds we'd still have more than 17 minutes. Possibly this is not an age but a GPS time stamp, given to the correction at the moment of its publication?
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2003 8:04 am Post subject: Strange values in SiRF-examples
Hi there,
I found the reason: There is indeed a little error in the documentation. The bytes in question must not be interpreted as integer values but as floating point numbers. SiRF has confirmed this suspicion. _________________ Best regards
Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising
We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!