[time-nuts] Anyone Know What The Models Were In This NIST Paper?

Tom Knox actast at hotmail.com
Fri Nov 1 22:47:12 EDT 2013


I do not have any say in it but I voiced the groups concerns to a few affiliates at NIST today. One Senior Researcher told me he has been making an effort for some time now to document all the equipment used related to a research project, adding the standard disclaimer that it was not an endorsement or recommendation. I tried to reach one of the papers author to see if they were comfortable releasing more GPS product data but missed him. I will try again Monday, but it is really up the authors what they feel comfortable with. I will also inquire as to what configuration of GPS they currently use for Time and Freq. Whether they use L1, or L1/L2, Carrier Phase or what the current thinking is of state of the art.

Thomas Knox



> Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 00:33:28 +0100
> From: magnus at rubidium.dyndns.org
> To: time-nuts at febo.com
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Anyone Know What The Models Were In This NIST Paper?
> 
> On 10/31/2013 12:14 AM, Jim Lux wrote:
> > On 10/30/13 3:46 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> They have learned the hard way that they can't do that easily. They can,
> >> if they add the necessary "mentioning of vendor X and their product Y
> >> does in no way means an endorsement". I've seen presentations starting
> >> with a "non-endorsement statement" so that they can then say "Oh, this
> >> is the boxes we have chosen to use", which tends to just render spread
> >> of information and sharing of experience amongst the users.
> >>
> >> I expect them (NIST and other publicly funded institutions) to act like
> >> this. It is a bit annoying when you just want to know what they where
> >> using, but it's understandable. It is even more understandable as they
> >> start to list miss-features of device A, B and C, but not device D.
> >>
> >
> > It works both ways, when you have a device that you're particularly
> > proud of, and it performs well in the tests, you want them to say "Jim
> > Lux's fabulous device performed orders of magnitude better than all
> > other devices tested, particularly the unusually poor performance from
> > the device from Magnus Danielson" <grin>.
> No need to write that, as it is common knowledge that MD's device is not
> only of inferior quality and performance, but the residue of a hedgehog
> nest, at best. <grin>
> >
> > But there are also other forces at work.
> >
> > There are  cases where IEEE and authors were sued because of a paper
> > that essentially said that a particular product not only didn't work,
> > but that underlying physics guaranteed that it couldn't work.  (early
> > streamer emission devices, and a paper by Mousa, in particular)
> >
> > It would be an amusing story, if all the litigation hadn't happened.
> > For instance, Mousa reports on one installation where the lightning
> > eliminator was completely destroyed by a lightning stroke.
> > "The traffic controllers at Tampa saw a flash of light during a storm,
> > heard thunder and observed a shower of sparks drop past the tower
> > window. A later visit to the rooftop revealed that a part of the charge
> > dissipater array of Manufacturer “A” had disappeared."
> >
> >
> > that would tend to drive authors to such circumlocutions as Brand X, etc.
> Oh yes. But we do these things over at this side of the pond, without
> having the use of the legal system, as seems customary on your side of
> the pond.
> 
> Cheers,
> Magnus
> _______________________________________________
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
 		 	   		  


More information about the time-nuts mailing list