Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 8: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:04, 27 August 2015

Revision as of 00:03, 16 June 2016

Line 810:

If anyone has additional comments, they’re appreciated . However, don’t spend an inordinate amount of time as the above has indeed helped a lot.

Thanks [[Special:Contributions/32.212.188.124|32.212.188.124]] ([[User talk:32.212.188.124|talk]]) 19:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

==Spheres subsection of Geometric interpretation is misleading and= confusing==

The Spheres subsection of Geometric interpretation is misleading and confusing. '''This subsection should be completely removed.''' In this subsection, there is a statement that the solution is at the intersection of three sphere surfaces. This is completely misleading and is incompatible with the need for four or more spheres as concluded in the Langley paper and as we have tried to make clear in the Problem description section.<ref name="Langley"></ref> It is also stated in the paper, <ref name="Abel1">Abel, J.S. and Chaffee, J.W., "Existence and uniqueness of GPS solutions", ''IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems'', vol:26, no:6, p:748-53, Sept. 1991.</ref>, that "GPS fixes are found as the point of intersection of four spheres centered on the satellites with radii given by the PRs corrected for user clock bias". This discussion of the solution being at the intersection of three sphere surfaces should be completely eliminated. [[User:RHB100|RHB100]] ([[User talk:RHB100|talk]]) 17:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objection to the deletion of this subsection? If so present your argument. Reading the Langley paper will help you understand why this subsection as it is currently written is confusing and misleading.<ref name="Langley"></ref> [[User:RHB100|RHB100]] ([[User talk:RHB100|talk]]) 01:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

:I see no harm in showing an idealised case with synchronised clock first. It gently brings the reader on board. &minus;[[User:Woodstone|Woodstone]] ([[User talk:Woodstone|talk]]) 10:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

::I hesitate to wade into this discussion, but I would first describe the case where the receiver clock is synchronized, since that's a three dimensional problem and can benefit from geometric analogies. Then I would generalize to the (real world) case where the receiver clock bias in unknown, and not attempt to make any geometric analogies, because that's hard to do and of limited benefit when you have four unknowns. [[User:Kendall-K1|Kendall-K1]] ([[User talk:Kendall-K1|talk]]) 22:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Well this subsection is certainly pathetic and confusing as it is currently written. Hopefully the more intelligent readers will have enough sense to ignore this pathetic and confusing subsection and rely on the equations in the Problem description section and the Solution methods section. Also readers should look at other publications such as the Langley paper rather than rely exclusively on Wikipedia.<ref name="Langley"></ref> [[User:RHB100|RHB100]] ([[User talk:RHB100|talk]]) 21:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

==Geometric interpretation section is a disaster==

The Geometric interpretation section is a disaster and should be removed. It would be

more correctly titled if it were called the Geometric misinterpretation section. It

looks like a forum for people to enter their favorite shape. All we need to have in the

Navigation equations section is a statement of the equations to be solved as in the

Problem description section and methods for solving these equations as in the Solution

methods section. In the Spheres subsection of Geometric interpretation, there is a

statement that the solution is at the intersection of three sphere surfaces. This is a

completely misleading statement which is incompatible with the need for four or more

spheres as concluded in the Langley paper and as we have tried to make clear in the

Problem description section.<ref name=Langley>Richard Langley, The Mathematics of GPS, [http://gauss.gge.unb.ca/gpsworld/EarlyInnovationColumns/Innov.1991.07-08.pdf], 1991</ref>

It is also stated in the paper, <ref name="Abel1">Abel, J.S. and Chaffee, J.W., "Existence and uniqueness of GPS solutions", ''IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems'', vol:26, no:6,

p:748-53, Sept. 1991.</ref>, that "GPS fixes are found as the point of intersection of four spheres centered on the satellites with radii given by the PRs corrected for user clock bias".

The Hyperboloids sub-section does not in any way enhance the understanding of GPS. The

paper by Abel and Chaffee referenced does not even mention the word, hyperboloid, in any

form.<ref name="Abel1"></ref> The Langley paper talks about the intersection of four or

more spheres and does not mention hyperboloids.<ref name="Langley"></ref>

For gaining an understanding of GPS, the concept of four dimensional spherical cones

contributes nothing but instead only adds confusion. You don't need to know anything

about four dimensional spherical cones to understand GPS and you should not waste your

time on this unrelated topic. [[User:RHB100|RHB100]] ([[User talk:RHB100|talk]]) 20:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

. .

:We have discussed this several times already. See [[Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 8]]. [[User:Kendall-K1|Kendall-K1]] ([[User talk:Kendall-K1|talk]]) 20:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Well what I have said before is absolute truth and what I say now is absolute truth. Although I clearly understand the incorrect and misleading nature of this section, there are some who don't seem to understand. I am here presenting the great disregard for honesty and integrity which characterizes the writing of this section. No one has ever presented good arguments why this section should be retained. I am a licensed professional engineer. I hold advanced engineering degree from both the University of Arkansas and UCLA. When you say, "We have discussed this", that is a very vague and ambiguous statement. There are several points that are made in what I have said above, you don't say whether you are talking about hyperboloids, three spheres, spherical cones or what. [[User:RHB100|RHB100]] ([[User talk:RHB100|talk]]) 03:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}