On the other hand, if you don't have a way to compute the intersection volume I suppose you could represent your object in a 3d grid and then estimate intersection volume numerically.

My estimated link budget: Cable: -2 dB SAW Filter: -2.2 dB LNA: +14.5 dB Mixer: +10 dB (I'm pretty sure I've set this correctly, based on a DC measurement at VGIN) IF Filter: -1 dB (I don't think this is correct) IF Amp: 30 dB Based on this I expected to measure 2 dBm or .8 Vpk-pk at the ADC.

On 09/05/2013 03:10 AM, Cheng Chi wrote: > Hi Matt, > > The time difference is the TDOA we estimated by cross-correlating the > two signals. For our setup, we expected that the TDOA would be less > than 100ns, but constantly got a TDOA between +0.2 and -0.2 us. > > So the code to align LOs in the frontend would have no effect for > DBSRX2.

So, > depending on what you consider to be remarkable, you might call this a My estimation was near 10dB, but OK, 6dB are possible, too. > remarkable drop; however, I don't think TX power is that critical for GSM; > what are the operational differences you see at 1.8GHz? At least the operational range drops significantly, even on line of sight.

>>>simple arithmetic with a timescale with a variable second would give an >>>order of magnitude better estimate of the amount of time between 2005 Dec 31 >>>23:59:59.9 and 2006 Jan 01 00:00:00.1 than UTC does!

The cesium fountain travels at a known dispersion of speeds (source of error) as well as known potential error in the tuning methods, so it's possible to estimate that the new design will have a lower error without actually having something to compare it to.

. >> You will get a very accurate frequency error estimate, so you will very >> quickly be close enought to go into phase lock. At least if your clock isn't >> too noisy. So, the lock-in time should not be the major concern, but rather >> the behaviour of the full setup when running.

. > For improved performance a hardware circuit to correct the PPS sawtooth > error will improve the medium term stability significantly when using a > high performance GPS timing receiver that provides an estimate of this > error. You have made similar comments about I believe the same approach in the past.

On Sun, 2008-03-30 at 05:46 -0400, GandalfG8@aol.com wrote: > ----------------------------- > I think that's all rather optimistic, as mentioned previously height > estimation is the most innacurate parameter to be reported by GPS units.

The 20 ps is a handy rought estimate. It is best viewed as being counted in a 51,2 GHz counting clock. And to comment on the resolution/accuracy aspectt... they are certainly not the same. The resolution is what every steps the hardware will divide the time in. The precission of those samples can deviate alot, and cross-talk will shift the time.