Talk:Global Positioning System: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 11:35, 27 October 2010 editDVdm (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers138,502 edits →Multidimensional Newton-Raphson for GPS - Can't make heads or tails of it: still wp:SYNTH and wp:OR and actually not relevant in this article← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:49, 27 October 2010 edit undoRHB100 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users2,197 edits →Multidimensional Newton-Raphson for GPS - Can't make heads or tails of it Next edit →
Line 64:		Line 64:

	::That's a start, but I don't think this is sufficient. When I said that "''it does not need clarification, but sources,''" that means that the ''entire derivation'' (i.e. every single equation) needs to be sourced. We don't just need a source with "published equations on which this section is based", together with a source that explains Newton-Raphson. Using both sources together to produce this exposé, is still a classic case of ], and thus of ], as clearly these equations do not qualify as trivial calculations (see ]). So, unless we have a single source that solidly backs the subsection, I think it will have to go.<p>Now, even if/when it can be properly sourced, i.m.o. this entire subsection does not belong in this article. It should be largely sufficient to write a single sentence saying that N-R can be used to calculate some equations and then point to the (single) source that does so, or that says that it can be done. ] (]) 11:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)		::That's a start, but I don't think this is sufficient. When I said that "''it does not need clarification, but sources,''" that means that the ''entire derivation'' (i.e. every single equation) needs to be sourced. We don't just need a source with "published equations on which this section is based", together with a source that explains Newton-Raphson. Using both sources together to produce this exposé, is still a classic case of ], and thus of ], as clearly these equations do not qualify as trivial calculations (see ]). So, unless we have a single source that solidly backs the subsection, I think it will have to go.<p>Now, even if/when it can be properly sourced, i.m.o. this entire subsection does not belong in this article. It should be largely sufficient to write a single sentence saying that N-R can be used to calculate some equations and then point to the (single) source that does so, or that says that it can be done. ] (]) 11:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

			I suggest you thoroughly study the references provided before making any judgement as to whether they are adequate or not. I see no evidence from your comments above that you have read the references provided. Also I suggest that you take into consideration that your lack of interest in the useful mathematics provided does not imply that all other people have this lack of interest in useful mathematics. Leaving out material that interests a small minority does grave damage. Leaving in material that may not interest a large majority does essentially no damage. ] (]) 18:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:49, 27 October 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Global Positioning System article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 21 days

Global Positioning System is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 10, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
August 9, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed

Current status: Former featured article candidate

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Technology / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Electronics

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Geographical coordinates

Global Positioning System is of interest to WikiProject Geographical coordinates, which encourages the use of geographical coordinates in Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Geographical coordinatesWikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinatesTemplate:WikiProject Geographical coordinatesGeographical coordinates

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Aviation

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Systems High‑importance

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page.

Orienteering (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Orienteering, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OrienteeringWikipedia:WikiProject OrienteeringTemplate:WikiProject OrienteeringOrienteering

Template:WikiProject Maritime Trades

Template:WP1.0

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on February 14, 2005, February 14, 2006, February 14, 2007, and February 14, 2008.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Relativity and GPS without the discussion of relativism

In the section, Special and general relativiy, the statement, "Without correction, errors in position determination of roughly 10 km/day would accumulate", is made. This statement seems to be based on the fact that c*(38 microseconds) = (299792.5 km/sec)*(.000038 sec) is roughly 10 kilometers. But in solving the navigation equations the receiver's clock error must be determined and corrected. This clock error correction causes the receiver's clock to be very accurate relative to the clocks of the sattelites. The computed receiver position is also approximately correct not off by roughly 10 kilometers as it would be without the correction of the receiver' clock. This needs to be clarified. RHB100 (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the statement needs to be removed. The receivers compute (t,x,y,z) based on transmissions from the satellites. In an 'uncorrected' system, where the clocks in the satellites ran at 10.24Mhz, the 't' component that a receiver near the surface of the Earth computes would indeed drift 38us/day -- but the (x,y,z) would be virtually unchanged because the light time from the satellite to receiver is only a fraction of a second, not an entire day.

As far as I can recall the only significant relativistic effect that is directly corrected for in GPS is due to the slightly eccentric orbits of the satellites. By "directly corrected", I mean that the satellites themselves broadcast information to carry out the correction, and a receiver that opts to ignore these terms will endure ~15m errors in the (x,y,z). mdf (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I am gload to get your agreement on this point. RHB100 (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Multidimensional Newton-Raphson for GPS - Can't make heads or tails of it

Do you think we could get an animated graphical demonstration of this process? -- Denelson 83 02:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Let us attempt to isolate where some of the confusion lies. This will provide a first step toward providing any needed clarification. Do you find it clear down through equation (1)? If not, can you state clearly what in your opinion is not clear: RHB100 (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the part ending with equation (1) is clear. -- Denelson 83 05:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I would rather see proper sourcing for this subsection. As it is now, it does not need clarification, but sources. Otherwise I'm sure we can safely remove the subsection as classic case of wp:original research. I have tagged the section. DVdm (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

References have been added to show the published equations on which this section is based. In view of the statement that it does not need clarification, the templates are no longer needed. RHB100 (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a start, but I don't think this is sufficient. When I said that "it does not need clarification, but sources," that means that the entire derivation (i.e. every single equation) needs to be sourced. We don't just need a source with "published equations on which this section is based", together with a source that explains Newton-Raphson. Using both sources together to produce this exposé, is still a classic case of wp:SYNTH, and thus of wp:OR, as clearly these equations do not qualify as trivial calculations (see wp:CALC). So, unless we have a single source that solidly backs the subsection, I think it will have to go.

Now, even if/when it can be properly sourced, i.m.o. this entire subsection does not belong in this article. It should be largely sufficient to write a single sentence saying that N-R can be used to calculate some equations and then point to the (single) source that does so, or that says that it can be done. DVdm (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you thoroughly study the references provided before making any judgement as to whether they are adequate or not. I see no evidence from your comments above that you have read the references provided. Also I suggest that you take into consideration that your lack of interest in the useful mathematics provided does not imply that all other people have this lack of interest in useful mathematics. Leaving out material that interests a small minority does grave damage. Leaving in material that may not interest a large majority does essentially no damage. RHB100 (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Categories: