[time-nuts] L1 and L2 frequencies

"Björn Gabrielsson" bg at lysator.liu.se
Thu Jan 15 18:01:03 EST 2015


>>> If civilian receivers where to implement L2C and L5 which now is
>>> becoming common, they would gain quite a bit of precision in a similar
>>> fashion. For car navigation, the GPS would know which lane you are in.
>> There ARE civilian receivers doing this, and has been for quite some
>> years. And its not from only a few vendors - all the big ones have it -
>> Trimble, Novatel, Topcon, Javad, Leica, Septentrio and a few more. There
>> are now receivers tracking "GPS L1/L2/L2C/L5, Galileo
>> E1/E5A/E5B/AltBoc/E6, GLONASS L1/L2/L3, BeiDou B1/B2/B3, QZSS L1/L2/L5"
>> The price exceeds my home hobby budget, but so does a replacement
>> CS-tube
>> a factory new OCXO based GPSDO and many other things you can sometime
>> find
>> at reasonable cost used/recycled.
> I naturally meant with a reasonable price-tag, sorry for being sloppy on
> that detail, and I do know that there is vendors for those signals.
> If we had dual or triple frequency receivers below 500 USD things would
> start to be interesting. If high-volume kits would be just twice as
> expensive, it would be possible to consider for more luxury models.

Receiver with 24 universal channels each of GPS L1/L2/L2C/L5 is cheaper
than a entry level TCXO-based 19" GPSDO (M300GPS @ Dustin). And about the
same price as a modern Loran receiver. What is a reasonable commercial

 But yes, multi frequency GNSS is much more expensive than the Oncore,
Ublox traditionally used in a GPSDO. Is the performance gain worth the
cost? Certainly not for all but a few.

On the oscillator side, we consider everything from XO, TCXO, OCXO, DOCXO,
to devar based designs - BVAs and others, and rubidiums, cesiums and
Masers. What are reasonable price-tags for oscillators compared to various
time transfer capable receiver?



More information about the time-nuts mailing list