To put it shortly: Galileo GNSS is, by far, the most accurate GNSS
operating today. Much better than GPS and other global/regional system. And this apply to free civilian uses with only one frequency.

The charade of master 10.23 Mhz OCXO detuning in GPS by 4.57 mHz to
avoid the "horror" of 11 Km/day accumulative error if such correction
isn't done is finished since this 2015 paper became available (with access
restrictions, which hackers managed to avoid).

NO frequency adjustment prior lunch is done to any state of the art Galileo
satellite. A correction, IF ANY, is left to different manufacturers of Galileo
receivers, following suggestions made by Galileo's authorities, in a technical document.

The relativistic corrections (SR, GR), which formulae plagues the web (the
same formulae over and over) are not implemented nor in Galileo
satellites neither at any of the many ground control stations around the
world, which serves different purposes.

Outrageous physicists at US and Europe are puzzled by such decision,
because after 44 years of brainwashing around GPS, it seems that such
detuning need is "exagerated". There are dozen more COMPLEX problems
to be solved (not related to SR/GR) in order to provide a high quality global
timing reference. And this MAIN objective was the drive behind Galileo's
developments, an enterprise with investments of billion of USD and a
collaborative project between many western european nations.

But, going to the point. The following paper:

Relativistic Corrections in the European GNSS Galileo
Dr. A. Mudraka, Dr. P. De Simonea, Dr. ing. M. Lisi
2015 - European Space Agency - ESTEC, The Netherlands

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2FBF03404697.pdf

uses 6 pages to talk about the impact of SR/GR with formulae that
can be found on almost any paper or book dealing this topic, being
all of them based on theoretical developments from a theory, with
some numbers fed into to produce the same results written all over
for decades, WONDERING WHY Galileo GNSS satellites don't include
such corrections.

Galileo's authorities have make it clear that they are passing the "problem"
to every manufacturers of his receivers, and also provides a formula to
be used, IF manufacturers want, which includes a relativistic factor,
among many. Check this summary, if you want (page 6, point 2.2.2):

Galileo L10 Satellites: Orbit, Clock and Signal-in-Space
Performance Analysis

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi6veGDmefyAhVYGbkGHXglBm8QFnoECAUQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mdpi.com%2F1424-8220%2F21%2F5%2F1695%2Fpdf&usg=AOvVaw0RbasUJqG29qqRk0ClvvfN

*************************************************
Here is the bitching of the authors of the paper:

Excerpt:

4. Relativistic Corrections Implemented in Galileo

The relativistic effects analysed so far would introduce significant errors
in the ranging and consequently positioning accuracies of a GNSS system,
unless they are carefully taken into account in the system design and
user algorithms.

In GPS and GLONASS the systematic relativistic net effect (i.e. the combination of the gravitational frequency shift and the time dilation
due to the orbital motion of the satellite) is compensated by adequately
offsetting the onboard clocks before launch, while time-varying effects
are corrected at user receiver level.

It is anticipated that this is not the approach in the Galileo system.

As explained in detail in the following paragraphs, the correction of relativistic errors is performed at user receiver level, on the basis of
information broadcasted through the navigation message.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My NOTE: What the fuck do these people about GLONASS?. As if the
russians were willing to spread information about a key defense system,
exactly as US does (not) due to security reasons!. Also they expect to
be heard in the future (6 years and still waiting).

So, t = t' as it is said often here.

Another thing is: why the "alleged" detuning is to solve a daily difference
of 47.17 µs/day - 6.37 µs/day = , if the SR/GR impacts are for circular orbits and constant tangential velocities, which doesn't happens?.
The famous 38 µs/day drift is a lie, and has stuck into people's mind
since mid '70s.

On 9/5/2021 2:50 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> To put it shortly: Galileo GNSS is, by far, the most accurate GNSS
> operating today. Much better than GPS and other global/regional system. And this apply to free civilian uses with only one frequency.

Why/how is it better, and according to whom?
>
> The charade of master 10.23 Mhz OCXO detuning in GPS by 4.57 mHz to

It's not "detuning" of course.

> avoid the "horror" of 11 Km/day accumulative error if such correction
> isn't done is finished since this 2015 paper became available (with access
> restrictions, which hackers managed to avoid).

I don't know why you put horror in quotes, 11 km/day error is pretty
horrible, you must admit.
>
> NO frequency adjustment prior lunch is done to any state of the art Galileo
> satellite. A correction, IF ANY, is left to different manufacturers of Galileo
> receivers, following suggestions made by Galileo's authorities, in a technical document.

"IF ANY" (added by you) is silly, unless you don't want it to work, of
course. What is correct is the compensation is done by the receiver.
Part of which, of course is instead of doing the equivalent of
transmitting at 10.2299999 MHz in order to be received at 10.23 MHz, it
would do the equivalent of transmitting at 10.23 MHz in order to be
received at 10.2300001 MHz, and the receiver does the GR correction.
Galileo does something else to follow GR a little better than GPS but I
forgot the details. Or maybe that's why it's better than GPS?
>
> The relativistic corrections (SR, GR), which formulae plagues the web (the
> same formulae over and over) are not implemented nor in Galileo
> satellites neither at any of the many ground control stations around the
> world, which serves different purposes.

It's done in the receivers instead.
>
<snip more mouth foaming>

On Sunday, 5 September 2021 at 09:41:35 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:

> "IF ANY" (added by you) is silly, unless you don't want it to work, of
> course. What is correct is the compensation is done by the receiver.
> Part of which, of course is instead of doing the equivalent of
> transmitting at 10.2299999 MHz

A lie, as expected of course from stupid Mike. It's 10.23, both
measured by a ground clock and by a local satellite clock.

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 1:50:43 AM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Another thing is: why the "alleged" detuning is to solve a daily difference
> of 47.17 µs/day - 6.37 µs/day = , if the SR/GR impacts are for circular orbits
> and constant tangential velocities, which doesn't happens?.
> The famous 38 µs/day drift is a lie, and has stuck into people's mind
> since mid '70s.

*** YOU COMPLETELY MISUNDERSTAND THE LITERATURE ***

The processing technology available to the GPS designers in the
mid-to-late 70s was EXTREMELY LIMITED.

As a result, the relativistic correction for orbital eccentricity has
ALWAYS been delegated to the receivers. ALWAYS. As the GPS
satellite orbits the Earth, its velocity and altitude changes resulting in
periodic changes in the timing signals which must be compensated
for.

In regards to the overall average 38 microsecond per day drift between
clocks in orbit versus clocks on the ground, the designers of GPS had
only one available solution, which was to hard-wire a one-size-fits-all
offset to the carrier frequency.

This one-size-fits-all offset applied to every Block I satellite, regardless
of errors in orbital insertion altitude and deviations in the frequencies
output by the atomic frequency standards carried by each satellite.

Block II satellites introduced fine tuning of the frequency synthesizers.
This allowed correction for non-nominal orbital insertion altitude
requiring a different relativistic correction as well as glitches/aging of
the rubidium frequency standards.

Because of the extensive infrastructure that has always depended
on the signal as received on the ground being 10.23 MHz, the
signals transmitted by GPS satellites are always offset by the
amount necessary to compensate for relativistic effects. You can't
change the rules at such a fundamental level without causing the
entire system to crash.

The designers of Galileo benefited from decades of advancement
in processing power, and thus were free to make design decisions that
were different from what the GPS designers were forced to make.
Corrections for the overall difference in rate between clocks in orbit
versus clocks on the ground ARE STILL NECESSARY, but the unified
72 bit Clock Correction Parameters field apparently accounts for ALL
necessary corrections, not just for the overall relativistic offset, but
also corrections for frequency variations in the rubidium and hydrogen
maser outputs.

In the past, I've questioned this apparent design decision, because the
limited size of the SV clock bias correction coefficient (only 31 bits)
would necessitate a clock reset every several years if no GPS-like offset
were applied to the orbital clock rates, so I'm allowing for the possibility
that I've misread something...

On Sunday, 5 September 2021 at 12:09:38 UTC+2, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 1:50:43 AM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > Another thing is: why the "alleged" detuning is to solve a daily difference
> > of 47.17 µs/day - 6.37 µs/day = , if the SR/GR impacts are for circular orbits
> > and constant tangential velocities, which doesn't happens?.
> > The famous 38 µs/day drift is a lie, and has stuck into people's mind
> > since mid '70s.
> *** YOU COMPLETELY MISUNDERSTAND THE LITERATURE ***
>
> The processing technology available to the GPS designers in the
> mid-to-late 70s was EXTREMELY LIMITED.
>
> As a result, the relativistic correction for orbital eccentricity has
> ALWAYS been delegated to the receivers. ALWAYS.

A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. These "relativistic"
corrections are directly FORBIDDEN by your moronic Shit,
your moronic ISO and your moronic guru Tom screaming
what we're FORCED to.

On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 11:50:43 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz spewed:
> snip cretinisms<

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 7:09:38 AM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 1:50:43 AM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:

> > Another thing is: why the "alleged" detuning is to solve a daily difference
> > of 47.17 µs/day - 6.37 µs/day = , if the SR/GR impacts are for circular orbits
> > and constant tangential velocities, which doesn't happens?.
> > The famous 38 µs/day drift is a lie, and has stuck into people's mind
> > since mid '70s.

> *** YOU COMPLETELY MISUNDERSTAND THE LITERATURE ***

<snip>

And once again, you have to start with a disqualifying comment like that!

I don't understand the need to use such derogatory comment before you start
to attempt to provide some short sighted but long explanations based on your
understanding which, under any possible test, is not higher or better than mine.

I think that's a cheap way to start a reply. I, mostly, don't misunderstand technical
literature on the fields at which I'm knowledgeable. Your comment is childish and
with no fundamental basis to sustain it, even as an insult.

It's like I hit a nerve on you every time I post something about technology that's
close to your field of knowledge. I hate that these posts have to turn into a "mine
is bigger than your" contest, losing time with such trivial comments while the
lady is watching and waiting for the contest to finish, while she is thinking: "What
a couple of jerks. Now they will invest hours in a long discuss about which standard
are they going to use".

Stop doing that, because it causes any following comment worthless to be read!

I'll think if I reply to you later, as it will take some time. Time for what?

Should I invest more time to find documents and excerpts that top your comments,
only to find that you are investing more time to do exactly the same thing on mine?

This is a positive feedback loop, which causes oscillations. In electronics, in a bridge
that's being struck by wind blows which sweep finding it's resonance frequency, etc.

I'll let you know later, but keep in mind that your comments are quite limited in its scope.

As I told you recently, you seem to lack the ability to see the big picture on whatever and,
from there, point with accuracy (like a laser beam) on the weak spots. I can, but it seems
that you can not. And this is one of the major differences between us. Details matter, but
concepts always are above details, and don't change with technology.

I manage concepts very well, as well as details, but I don't let details loose my overall vision,
which is what really matter when time for explanations arrives.

So, unless you can do a top-down analysis and insist in performing bottom-up analysis, we
are living in quite different worlds.

Maybe I'll continue with this "contest", depending on my mood. It seems that, for you, the chance
that two smart persons be at the same room in the same time is not possible.. I think it is possible,
but only if both respect each other. I'm not the one that disrespect the other here.

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 1:01:57 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip void>

Butthurt much, Dono? Do you feel alone?

Maybe I'll entertain you with some past crap of yours done here.

You'll not laugh, for sure.

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 9:05:36 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz frothed at the mouth:

> I am butthurt

You should be, shiteater: https://www.google.com/search?q=relativistic+correction+for+orbital+eccentricity+has+ALWAYS+been+done+in+the+receivers&client=firefox-b-1-d&sxsrf=AOaemvL_Nmgf9mmAEHSmKVsB6ZSMnvJlAA%3A1630858046077&ei=Pus0Yb-BBOGU0PEPuMSYqAY&oq=relativistic+correction+for+orbital+eccentricity+has+ALWAYS+been+done+in+the+receivers&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAM6BwgjELADECc6BwgAEEcQsAM6BAgjECc6BAghEApKBAhBGABQpZsEWOzQBGCH1QRoAXACeACAAa4BiAHwE5IBBDEuMjCYAQCgAQHIAQnAAQE&sclient=gws-wiz&ved=0ahUKEwi_mI_Um-jyAhVhCjQIHTgiBmUQ4dUDCA4&uact=5

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 1:16:52 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip usual verbal diarrhea>
Crawl back to under the rock you live, scumbag.

I'm sorry I disturbed you while eating your usual portion of rotten garbage.

Den 05.09.2021 08:50, skrev Richard Hertz:
>
> https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2FBF03404697.pdf

Thanks for a very interesting paper!

> uses 6 pages to talk about the impact of SR/GR with formulae that
> can be found on almost any paper or book dealing this topic, being
> all of them based on theoretical developments from a theory, with
> some numbers fed into to produce the same results written all over
> for decades, WONDERING WHY Galileo GNSS satellites don't include
> such corrections.

And this paper answers the question we have been wondering about:
"Is the satellite clock corrected for relativistic effects?"

Let's quote from the paper:
"At the time of writing, the frequency of the Galileo
satellite clocks is not corrected to compensate
the relativistic shift, unlike GPS. Nevertheless,
the capability to adjust the satellite clock frequency,
e.g. in order to align it to GST, is available. Galileo
onboard clocks will be periodically aligned to GST both
and phase and frequency to maintain these parameters
within the limits acceptable from the system operations
point of view. Furthermore, as an experiment, the relativistic
frequency shift of GSAT0102 (PRN E12) was corrected in orbit,
after launch."

I quote from a previous conversation:

| On July 15, 2021 Paul B. Andersen wrote:
|> Den 14.07.2021 05:56, skrev Prokaryotic Capase Homolog:

|>> A number of years ago, Paul Andersen had given a link
|>> to a description of the tunable frequency synthesizers
|>> used in current GPS satellites.
|>> Although the earliest GPS satellites could not be
|>> fine-tuned, current satellites -are- tunable.
|>> The nominal frequency offset mentioned in the GPS
|>> ICD is merely that: a -nominal- frequency offset.
|>>
|>
|> The paper at the mentioned link doesn't seem to be
|> available any more, but here is another paper about
|> the same issue:
|>
|> https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a485237.pdf
|>
|> "The purpose of the GPS Block II-R TKS shown in Figure 1
|> is to tune the 10.23 MHz digitally controlled VCXO to produce
|> the GPS navigation signal with the timing accuracy of RAFS.
|> By linking the VCXO to the RAFS using a control loop controlled
|> by software, it is possible to precisely adjust the frequency
|> and phase of the TKS output, to cancel drift of the RAFS once
|> it has been characterized, and to detect any anomalous RAFS
|> frequency or phase excursions."
|>
|> TKS = Time Keeping System
|> RAFS = Rubidium Atomic Frequency Standard
|>
|> I think such a TKS has been in all Block II satellites,
|> and I strongly suspect that there is a similar system
|> in Galileo satellites.

So I was right. It is a "similar system" in the Galileo
satellites that make it possible to tune the frequency
after launch. And the satellite clock frequency is adjusted
by the factor -4.7219E-10 to align it to the GST (Galileo
System Time).

>
> Galileo's authorities have make it clear that they are passing the "problem"
> to every manufacturers of his receivers, and also provides a formula to
> be used, IF manufacturers want, which includes a relativistic factor,
> among many. Check this summary, if you want (page 6, point 2.2.2):

It is very obvious that you have no idea of how GPS
and Galileo work! :-D

Galileo L10 Satellites:
Orbit, Clock and Signal-in-Space Performance Analysis
https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/5/1695/pdf
see page 6, 2.2.2 equation (3)

Compare it to GPS Interface Specification:
https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200M.pdf
see page 97, 20.3.3.3.3.1 equation (2)

You will see that there are two identical equations.
So what are they?

Both GPS and Galileo satellite clocks in orbit are corrected
for the relativistic effect by the factors -4.4647E-10 and
-4.7219E-10 respectively. But due to the finite precision of
clocks, they will inevitably drift off sync with time.
Monitoring stations on the ground measure the clock errors,
and upload correction parameters to the satellites, which will
transmit them to the receivers. The receivers can then correct
the time when the signal was transmitted with these parameters.

The equation is: (SV = space vehicle - satellite)

δt_SV = a_f0 + a_f1(t-t_oc) + a_f2(t-t_oc)² + δt_rel

where t_OC is the time when the parameters were measured,
and t is the time when they were transmitted.

The correctional parameters received from the SV are:
a_f0 - the clock offset (error) at the time t_oc
a_f1 - the rate (frequency) error at the time t_oc
a_f2 - the rate of change of the frequency at the time t_oc

The fourth parameter δt_rel is a relativistic
correction which probably normally will be negligible.
If the orbit of the satellite is circular then δt_rel = 0.
But due to perturbations from the Sun and Moon, the orbit
will tend to be elliptical with time (eccentricity > 0),
which means that the speed of the satellite will vary
during the orbit, and the frequency of the satellite
clock (as observed from the ground) will also change
during the orbit.
δt_rel = const⋅sin(E)
where E is the phase of the orbit.

Note that if the satellite frequency was not corrected,
then a_f0 would grow by ≈ 38 μS/day, and since this
parameter is coded with a limited number of bits,
it would inevitably overflow after some time.
So the relativistic correction is necessary.

Note how similar GPS and Galileo are.
It is no coincident that the time correction equation
and the time correction parameters are equal, and even
have the same names!

>
> Another thing is: why the "alleged" detuning is to solve a daily difference
> of 47.17 µs/day - 6.37 µs/day = , if the SR/GR impacts are for circular orbits and constant tangential velocities, which doesn't happens?.

Thus δt_rel.

> The famous 38 µs/day drift is a lie, and has stuck into people's mind
> since mid '70s.
>

That clocks behave as predicted by GR is now so well confirmed
that no knowledgable person can fail to accept it.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 5:09:38 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> The designers of Galileo benefited from decades of advancement
> in processing power, and thus were free to make design decisions that
> were different from what the GPS designers were forced to make.
> Corrections for the overall difference in rate between clocks in orbit
> versus clocks on the ground ARE STILL NECESSARY, but the unified
> 72 bit Clock Correction Parameters field apparently accounts for ALL
> necessary corrections, not just for the overall relativistic offset, but
> also corrections for frequency variations in the rubidium and hydrogen
> maser outputs.
>
> In the past, I've questioned this apparent design decision, because the
> limited size of the SV clock bias correction coefficient (only 31 bits)
> would necessitate a clock reset every several years if no GPS-like offset
> were applied to the orbital clock rates, so I'm allowing for the possibility
> that I've misread something...

It appears that I did NOT misread the literature. In 2009, Ashby and Nelson
wrote:
| The GALILEO system is a European satellite navigation system which at
| present has two satellites in orbit. Specifications for this system call for
| all relativistic effects to be the responsibility of the receiver. No frequency
| offsets will be applied in hardware to the orbiting clocks, which will
| necessarily run faster than TT by a few parts in 10^10. It will be up to
| software in the receiver to correct the transmitted time ticks for this large
| time drift. https://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/2444.pdf

One way or the other, correction for the various components of the
relativistic time drift must be performed. In GPS, the constant component
of the drift is performed via hardware adjustment of the transmitted
carrier frequency, while the periodic correction for eccentricity is performed
at the receiver level. In GLONASS, both the constant component of the
drift as well as the periodic correction for eccentricity are performed at
the satellite level. In Galileo, all relativistic corrections are performed at
the receiver level.

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 3:47:02 PM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 05.09.2021 08:50, skrev Richard Hertz:
> >
> > https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2FBF03404697.pdf
>
> Thanks for a very interesting paper!
> > uses 6 pages to talk about the impact of SR/GR with formulae that
> > can be found on almost any paper or book dealing this topic, being
> > all of them based on theoretical developments from a theory, with
> > some numbers fed into to produce the same results written all over
> > for decades, WONDERING WHY Galileo GNSS satellites don't include
> > such corrections.
> And this paper answers the question we have been wondering about:
> "Is the satellite clock corrected for relativistic effects?"
>
> Let's quote from the paper:
> "At the time of writing, the frequency of the Galileo
> satellite clocks is not corrected to compensate
> the relativistic shift, unlike GPS. Nevertheless,
> the capability to adjust the satellite clock frequency,
> e.g. in order to align it to GST, is available. Galileo
> onboard clocks will be periodically aligned to GST both
> and phase and frequency to maintain these parameters
> within the limits acceptable from the system operations
> point of view. Furthermore, as an experiment, the relativistic
> frequency shift of GSAT0102 (PRN E12) was corrected in orbit,
> after launch."

Well, this is INTERESTING. I suppose that I'll have to take back
some of what I just posted a few seconds ago... :-)

Since the paper is behind a paywall, I'll need to pay a trip to the
university library before I can access it.

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 6:01:57 PM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 3:47:02 PM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > Den 05.09.2021 08:50, skrev Richard Hertz:
> > >
> > > https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2FBF03404697.pdf
> >
> > Thanks for a very interesting paper!
> > > uses 6 pages to talk about the impact of SR/GR with formulae that
> > > can be found on almost any paper or book dealing this topic, being
> > > all of them based on theoretical developments from a theory, with
> > > some numbers fed into to produce the same results written all over
> > > for decades, WONDERING WHY Galileo GNSS satellites don't include
> > > such corrections.
> > And this paper answers the question we have been wondering about:
> > "Is the satellite clock corrected for relativistic effects?"
> >
> > Let's quote from the paper:
> > "At the time of writing, the frequency of the Galileo
> > satellite clocks is not corrected to compensate
> > the relativistic shift, unlike GPS. Nevertheless,
> > the capability to adjust the satellite clock frequency,
> > e.g. in order to align it to GST, is available. Galileo
> > onboard clocks will be periodically aligned to GST both
> > and phase and frequency to maintain these parameters
> > within the limits acceptable from the system operations
> > point of view. Furthermore, as an experiment, the relativistic
> > frequency shift of GSAT0102 (PRN E12) was corrected in orbit,
> > after launch."
> Well, this is INTERESTING. I suppose that I'll have to take back
> some of what I just posted a few seconds ago... :-)
>
> Since the paper is behind a paywall, I'll need to pay a trip to the
> university library before I can access it.

Sorry that you couldn't access to the document. I did yesterday, and I thought
I posted the correct link to an alternative site. Now, it's gone. Can't find it again.

But, among many downloads, I got this 2017 presentation at an US university:

The impact of special and general Relativity through global satellite systems
June 2017
Neil Ashby
Dept. of Physics, University of Colorado
National Institute of Standards and Technology Affiliate

https://www.ill.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/ILL/2_News_Press_Events/Colloquia/Ashby_Colloquium_june2017.pdf

Read the ironic comment in page 61.

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 5:47:02 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

<snip>

> So I was right. It is a "similar system" in the Galileo
> satellites that make it possible to tune the frequency after launch.

Yes, and it's done periodically on per-satellite basis, in order to sync Earth systems
with the Galileo's constellation.

> And the satellite clock frequency is adjusted
> by the factor -4.7219E-10 to align it to the GST (Galileo System Time).

NO. Read the point "3.2. Satellite Clock Corrections" from the document (year 2021)
"Galileo L10 Satellites: Orbit, Clock and Signal-in-Space Performance Analysis"
that is at the link I provided in my post.

<snip>

> Galileo L10 Satellites: Orbit, Clock and Signal-in-Space Performance Analysis
> https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/5/1695/pdf, see page 6, 2.2.2 equation (3)
>
> Compare it to GPS Interface Specification:
> https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200M.pdf
> see page 97, 20.3.3.3.3.1 equation (2)
>
> You will see that there are two identical equations.
> So what are they?

Both documents are from 2021. Even the old spec (1993) IS-GPS-200C has the same
formula, and I'm almost sure that older release A and B have the same (can't get them).

> Both GPS and Galileo satellite clocks in orbit are corrected
> for the relativistic effect by the factors -4.4647E-10 and
> -4.7219E-10 respectively. But due to the finite precision of
> clocks, they will inevitably drift off sync with time.

NO, Paul. GPS does on pre-launch. Galileo doesn't. They pass the
"correction" problem, with a relativistic part, to receiver manufacturers.

<snip>

> The equation is: (SV = space vehicle - satellite)
>
> δt_SV = a_f0 + a_f1(t-t_oc) + a_f2(t-t_oc)² + δt_rel
>
> where t_OC is the time when the parameters were measured,
> and t is the time when they were transmitted.
>
> The correctional parameters received from the SV are:
> a_f0 - the clock offset (error) at the time t_oc
> a_f1 - the rate (frequency) error at the time t_oc
> a_f2 - the rate of change of the frequency at the time t_oc
>
> The fourth parameter δt_rel is a relativistic correction which probably normally will be negligible.
> If the orbit of the satellite is circular then δt_rel = 0.
> But due to perturbations from the Sun and Moon, the orbit will tend to be elliptical with time (eccentricity > 0),
> which means that the speed of the satellite will vary during the orbit, and the frequency of the satellite
> clock (as observed from the ground) will also change during the orbit.

> δt_rel = const⋅sin(E) where E is the phase of the orbit.
>
> Note that if the satellite frequency was not corrected, then a_f0 would grow by ≈ 38 μS/day, and since this
> parameter is coded with a limited number of bits, it would inevitably overflow after some time.
> So the relativistic correction is necessary.
>
> Note how similar GPS and Galileo are.
> It is no coincident that the time correction equation and the time correction parameters are equal, and even
> have the same names!

NO, they are not! This is european technology against US technology.
Both would prefer death before they reach agreement. No part want this.
I've seen it hundred of times in decades (telecom networks, TV standards, military standards, etc.).

GPS and Galileo are on their own class. Compatible? YES, through complex adaptations.
The war goes to the extent that the use of Galileo system is forbidden within the US, as well as GLONASS.

An awful example about this is the current war on COVID vaccines: nor UK's Astrazeneca
neither Russia's Sputnik V are allowed into the US.

<snip>

> Thus δt_rel.

Which is left to Galileo's receiver manufacturers to decide if they use it or the entire 40 years old
correction formula, from Pentagon.

> > The famous 38 µs/day drift is a lie, and has stuck into people's mind
> > since mid '70s.
> >
> That clocks behave as predicted by GR is now so well confirmed
> that no knowledgable person can fail to accept it.

I can't see an scenario where two world powers (US and EU) are going to discuss
such a trivial yet hot topic like SR/GR in public.
Behind close doors, each power does whatever they want to do, and it's called
National Security issue. The same apply to Russia.

The more details you publish, the easier you make the job of hackers.

Do I have to remember to you the numerous tampers and hacking of GPS based
cargo ships in 2020, which almost sunk state of the art destroyers at the Sea of Japan?

There is a war (always) and information is the most dangerous weapon.
Don't forget how much world economy depends on GPS in 2021.

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 6:15:26 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:

> The war goes to the extent that the use of Galileo system is forbidden
> within the US, as well as GLONASS.

Where in hell did did you get THAT fantasy?

Multi-constellation GNSS receivers are widely available in the US.
The most common combination that I see is GPS/GLONASS, but if
you are willing to pay the money, you can get multi-constellation,
multi-wavelength receivers covering ALL of the worldwide/regional
systems plus regional SBAS.

Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 6:15:26 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
>> The war goes to the extent that the use of Galileo system is forbidden
>> within the US, as well as GLONASS.
>
> Where in hell did did you get THAT fantasy?
>
> Multi-constellation GNSS receivers are widely available in the US.
> The most common combination that I see is GPS/GLONASS, but if
> you are willing to pay the money, you can get multi-constellation,
> multi-wavelength receivers covering ALL of the worldwide/regional
> systems plus regional SBAS.

I'm quite astonished by how far some retired (or wannabe) engineers
are able to spit nonsense when it comes to make up stuff about
Relativity.

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 9:16:29 PM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 6:15:26 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > The war goes to the extent that the use of Galileo system is forbidden
> > within the US, as well as GLONASS.
> Where in hell did did you get THAT fantasy?
>
> Multi-constellation GNSS receivers are widely available in the US.
> The most common combination that I see is GPS/GLONASS, but if
> you are willing to pay the money, you can get multi-constellation,
> multi-wavelength receivers covering ALL of the worldwide/regional
> systems plus regional SBAS.

I read it yesterday on one of the many papers (scientific or presentations at universities) that
I downloaded yesterday. It's in one of them, but the dates are between 2014 and 2017, so
probably this particular restriction has been lifted.

Regarding incompatibilities on purpose, I can cite many just by recalling them:

1. SONET vs. SDH Synchronous Hierarchies for public digital telecom networks (early '90s).
2. Bell 103 vs. CCITT V.21 modems (late '70s, first modems available for general public).
3. Asynchronous packet switching vs. Synchronous ISDN for voice and data public networks ('80s and '90s).
4. Bell standards vs. CCITT/CCIR standards, since early '50s.
5. NTSC vs. PAL.
6. F-15/F-16 vs. Eurofighter Typhoon, since the '70s.
7. ASCII vs. International Alphabet No. 5 (IA5), now International Reference Alphabet (IRA). Since '60s.
8. United States customary system (USCS or USC) vs. Metric system.
9. 110 VAC vs. 220 VAC.
10. Boeing vs. Airbus.

And the list could go on and on. Lately, as globalization rules, such differences are disappearing, mainly
in products for consumer markets.

On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 11:50:43 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> The famous 38 µs/day drift is a lie, and has stuck into people's mind
> since mid '70s.

Cretinoid,

Galileo performs the GR mandated corrections. So, you are eating shit. Again.

On 9/5/2021 11:52 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 7:09:38 AM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 1:50:43 AM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
>
>
>>> Another thing is: why the "alleged" detuning is to solve a daily difference
>>> of 47.17 µs/day - 6.37 µs/day = , if the SR/GR impacts are for circular orbits
>>> and constant tangential velocities, which doesn't happens?.
>>> The famous 38 µs/day drift is a lie, and has stuck into people's mind
>>> since mid '70s.
>
>> *** YOU COMPLETELY MISUNDERSTAND THE LITERATURE ***
>
> <snip>
>
> And once again, you have to start with a disqualifying comment like that!
>
> I don't understand the need to use such derogatory comment before you start
> to attempt to provide some short sighted but long explanations based on your
> understanding which, under any possible test, is not higher or better than mine.

<bla bla bla, or rather Waah! Waah! Waah!>

Prokaryotic Capase Homolog is correct. You completely misunderstood the
literature. (hopefully the lower case doesn't hurt your feelings like
the uppercase did)

It is an engineering decision where to place the correction, in the
transmitter (satellite) or receiver. GPS did it in the transmitter,
apparently to lessen the calculations needed in the relatively primitive
microprocessors used in the receivers. Galileo and GLONASS had the
advantage of seeing what GPS did and how they could do better with
changes such as that. Instead of being so ButtHertzed, you should have
countered his claims. If you could, of course. Or better yet, wipe the
foam from your mouth and learn how the systems work, including relativity.

<snip 80+ lines of ButtHertz>

On 9/5/2021 7:15 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 5:47:02 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> So I was right. It is a "similar system" in the Galileo
>> satellites that make it possible to tune the frequency after launch.
>
> Yes, and it's done periodically on per-satellite basis, in order to sync Earth systems
> with the Galileo's constellation.
>
> > And the satellite clock frequency is adjusted
>> by the factor -4.7219E-10 to align it to the GST (Galileo System Time).
>
> NO. Read the point "3.2. Satellite Clock Corrections" from the document (year 2021)
> "Galileo L10 Satellites: Orbit, Clock and Signal-in-Space Performance Analysis"
> that is at the link I provided in my post.
>
> <snip>
>
>> Galileo L10 Satellites: Orbit, Clock and Signal-in-Space Performance Analysis
>> https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/5/1695/pdf, see page 6, 2.2.2 equation (3)
>>
>> Compare it to GPS Interface Specification:
>> https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200M.pdf
>> see page 97, 20.3.3.3.3.1 equation (2)
>>
>> You will see that there are two identical equations.
>> So what are they?
>
> Both documents are from 2021. Even the old spec (1993) IS-GPS-200C has the same
> formula, and I'm almost sure that older release A and B have the same (can't get them).
>
>> Both GPS and Galileo satellite clocks in orbit are corrected
>> for the relativistic effect by the factors -4.4647E-10 and
>> -4.7219E-10 respectively. But due to the finite precision of
>> clocks, they will inevitably drift off sync with time.
>
> NO, Paul. GPS does on pre-launch. Galileo doesn't. They pass the
> "correction" problem, with a relativistic part, to receiver manufacturers.

And...? It's a different method to do the same thing. The point
remains that the GR correction is still necessary, regardless of
where/how it's done.

>> Note that if the satellite frequency was not corrected, then a_f0 would grow by ≈ 38 μS/day, and since this
>> parameter is coded with a limited number of bits, it would inevitably overflow after some time.
>> So the relativistic correction is necessary.
>>
>> Note how similar GPS and Galileo are.
>> It is no coincident that the time correction equation and the time correction parameters are equal, and even
>> have the same names!
>
> NO, they are not! This is european technology against US technology.
> Both would prefer death before they reach agreement. No part want this.

Irrelevant. Galileo designers had the advantage of being able to look
at the GPS specs and say "How can we do this, but better?" Also
advantages of more modern microprocessors etc. so some limitations are
no longer relevant.

On 9/5/2021 11:31 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 9:16:29 PM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 6:15:26 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>
>>> The war goes to the extent that the use of Galileo system is forbidden
>>> within the US, as well as GLONASS.
>> Where in hell did did you get THAT fantasy?
>>
>> Multi-constellation GNSS receivers are widely available in the US.
>> The most common combination that I see is GPS/GLONASS, but if
>> you are willing to pay the money, you can get multi-constellation,
>> multi-wavelength receivers covering ALL of the worldwide/regional
>> systems plus regional SBAS.
>
> I read it yesterday on one of the many papers (scientific or presentations at universities) that
> I downloaded yesterday. It's in one of them, but the dates are between 2014 and 2017, so
> probably this particular restriction has been lifted.

No such restriction. It is only a fantasy of yours.
>
> Regarding incompatibilities on purpose, I can cite many just by recalling them:

Many of these incompatibilities were due to things being designed by
different groups of engineers doing largely the same things, with little
communication with each other.
>

> 5. NTSC vs. PAL.

Based in part on powerline frequency (60 or 50 Hz), reducing the effects
of powerline ripple on the displayed picture.

> 8. United States customary system (USCS or USC) vs. Metric system.

More stubbornness of politicians and (domestic) business not wanting to
change over everything.

> 9. 110 VAC vs. 220 VAC.

From early in the days of electricity. 110V (now 120V) came from
Edison's DC system and his lightbulbs, also the "Edison system" supplied
to US houses, 120/240 volts single phase. The German company Siemens
came up with 220V and dominated the European market.

Also UK and continental Europe disagreed on the voltage, just not by as
much. 220V vs. 240V, now standardized at 230V with a tolerance wide
enough to accept either.

I believe in the early days multiple electric suppliers produced
different voltages even in the same country. This certainly happened
with frequencies. Early on, the electricity generated at Niagara Falls
was at 25 Hz, and 25 Hz was supplied in Canada and the Buffalo NY area
until the 1990s, and is still used in the Northeast Corridor rail line.
California once had 50 Hz in part. I've seen a General Electric
generator at an old mill building, dated 1897 and generating power at 40
Hz. A small hydroelectric plant in NY was one of the first such ever
built, it still generates power at 40 Hz, immediately converted to 60 Hz
before supplying the local grid.

The UK also had multiple different frequencies.

> 10. Boeing vs. Airbus.

Two different, competing companies making similar products.
>
> And the list could go on and on. Lately, as globalization rules, such differences are disappearing, mainly
> in products for consumer markets.
>

On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 2:34:10 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 9/5/2021 11:31 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 9:16:29 PM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 6:15:26 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>
> >>> The war goes to the extent that the use of Galileo system is forbidden
> >>> within the US, as well as GLONASS.
> >> Where in hell did did you get THAT fantasy?
> >>
> >> Multi-constellation GNSS receivers are widely available in the US.
> >> The most common combination that I see is GPS/GLONASS, but if
> >> you are willing to pay the money, you can get multi-constellation,
> >> multi-wavelength receivers covering ALL of the worldwide/regional
> >> systems plus regional SBAS.
> >
> > I read it yesterday on one of the many papers (scientific or presentations at universities) that
> > I downloaded yesterday. It's in one of them, but the dates are between 2014 and 2017, so
> > probably this particular restriction has been lifted.
> No such restriction. It is only a fantasy of yours.
> >
> > Regarding incompatibilities on purpose, I can cite many just by recalling them:
> Many of these incompatibilities were due to things being designed by
> different groups of engineers doing largely the same things, with little
> communication with each other.
> >
>
> > 5. NTSC vs. PAL.
>
> Based in part on powerline frequency (60 or 50 Hz), reducing the effects
> of powerline ripple on the displayed picture.
> > 8. United States customary system (USCS or USC) vs. Metric system.
> More stubbornness of politicians and (domestic) business not wanting to
> change over everything.
> > 9. 110 VAC vs. 220 VAC.
> From early in the days of electricity. 110V (now 120V) came from
> Edison's DC system and his lightbulbs, also the "Edison system" supplied
> to US houses, 120/240 volts single phase. The German company Siemens
> came up with 220V and dominated the European market.
>
> Also UK and continental Europe disagreed on the voltage, just not by as
> much. 220V vs. 240V, now standardized at 230V with a tolerance wide
> enough to accept either.
>
> I believe in the early days multiple electric suppliers produced
> different voltages even in the same country. This certainly happened
> with frequencies. Early on, the electricity generated at Niagara Falls
> was at 25 Hz, and 25 Hz was supplied in Canada and the Buffalo NY area
> until the 1990s, and is still used in the Northeast Corridor rail line.
> California once had 50 Hz in part. I've seen a General Electric
> generator at an old mill building, dated 1897 and generating power at 40
> Hz. A small hydroelectric plant in NY was one of the first such ever
> built, it still generates power at 40 Hz, immediately converted to 60 Hz
> before supplying the local grid.
>
> The UK also had multiple different frequencies.
>
> > 10. Boeing vs. Airbus.
>
> Two different, competing companies making similar products.
> >
> > And the list could go on and on. Lately, as globalization rules, such differences are disappearing, mainly
> > in products for consumer markets.
> >

Do you remember old electric wall clocks from the '60s and '70s, clocked by AC line frequency? It was so
inaccurate by then, losing seconds in a day. Today, line frequencies at the electric grid are locked with local
rubidium clocks which even have a GPS receiver incorporated (if you pay for it), so I bet that its accuracy now
is better than any battery powered alarm watch that you use to wake up.

On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 1:39:52 AM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Do you remember old electric wall clocks from the '60s and '70s, clocked by AC line frequency? It was so
> inaccurate by then, losing seconds in a day. Today, line frequencies at the electric grid are locked with local
> rubidium clocks which even have a GPS receiver incorporated (if you pay for it), so I bet that its accuracy now
> is better than any battery powered alarm watch that you use to wake up.

What third-world country did you grow up in?

Even in the 50's, although the mains frequency in the US might deviate
as much as 1% from the nominal 60 Hz under conditions of exceptionally
heavy load, the power was regulated so that over the long term, clocks
would always show the correct time to within a few seconds.

I learned that in elementary school in an educational film. I think that
Don Herbert also mentioned that fact in Watch Mr. Wizard. Unfortunately,
I couldn't locate the episode that I was thinking about on YouTube.

On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 4:26:26 AM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 1:39:52 AM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > Do you remember old electric wall clocks from the '60s and '70s, clocked by AC line frequency? It was so
> > inaccurate by then, losing seconds in a day. Today, line frequencies at the electric grid are locked with local
> > rubidium clocks which even have a GPS receiver incorporated (if you pay for it), so I bet that its accuracy now
> > is better than any battery powered alarm watch that you use to wake up.
> What third-world country did you grow up in?
>
> Even in the 50's, although the mains frequency in the US might deviate
> as much as 1% from the nominal 60 Hz under conditions of exceptionally
> heavy load, the power was regulated so that over the long term, clocks
> would always show the correct time to within a few seconds.
>
> I learned that in elementary school in an educational film. I think that
> Don Herbert also mentioned that fact in Watch Mr. Wizard. Unfortunately,
> I couldn't locate the episode that I was thinking about on YouTube.

You didn't understand what I wrote. A difference of 1% 50 years ago vs. 1 part/trillion parts is
what happened since the '70s. The power grid frequency is now locked to atomic clock frequencies.