The order was placed 3/20, it gave an estimated ship date of 4/25, and we discussed options to expedite. Shipping was the only variable in lead time, and $270 in direct air shipping from Germany would shave a week off delivery time. Not worthwhile to me.

The time delay between receivers is estimated by taking the maximum sample number of the cross-correlations. A sub-sample estimate is performed via parabolic interpolation. Our results show differences on the order of 10's of microseconds, but the actual number is random, which agrees with [4].

Assuming you don't have the dynamic range problem (because you say "radar like application"), you'd still only lose 3 samples worth of info – and in that situation, also only 3 samples worth of energy; that not being a recoverable problem by the estimator that follows is not a good sign with respect to that estimator's variance...

□ Kids Day, Friday, June 19, 11 -4 pm, Les Gove Park (Families and school-aged kids) Park Programs (200- 600 Estimated attendance) Seeking 1 artist for each event * Kids Summer Stage, Wednesdays, July 8, July 15, July 22, July 29, August 5 and August 12, 11 -2 pm, Les Gove Park (Kids ages 2-5) * Summer Sounds and Cinema (Family audiences)

The receiver uses the previous time estimates to correct its own clock and advanced receivers use Kalman filtering for optimum clock estimation. Each positional solution also feeds the clock algorithm so that the clock is steered towards a zero offest. The pseudo-ranges is samples with a sample clock, which has known deviation from the local clock.

Some oscillator datasheets specify Allan deviation values, but I guess what I need for estimating worst case timestamp error during holdover periods are actually MTIE values. Is there any way to estimate the latter from Allan deviations specs? Would an ADev of 65 x 10^-9 over 100s imply up to 6.5us of error after 100s? Any thoughts?

very low estimate. they are singing all along both roads.

I could get a rough estimate by measuring the bollard pull but that would only tell me the amount of thrust developed at zero velocity, not at speed. In the few instances I have tried to drag an anchor or tow another stranded boat, I am sure that the prop did not develop 708 lbs. of thrust.

There are also a huge number of ADEV estimator methods, crunching out different precision in their estimation of ADEV. FFT is one possible method alongside some processing that has been proposed. > It's true that the ADEV function is not all that sharp, but you shouldn't > ordinarily see effects removed from their causes by a 40:1 tau ratio.

The key will be orbit estimation for the +/- doppler part of it. Orbit estimation is not quite a slam dunk sort of thing. The GPSDO would also give accurate location. Even with good orbit data, the solution still requires a good location estimate.