Personal Records

[Tom Kunich]

I forgot that I had a power meter on the bike for awhile. So among other records it shows:

40 km in 26.24 minutes. Now I have no memory of that but it must have been on a century and a very long downhill. -that's over 56 mph. While the climbs in that area tend to be VERY steep, the descents are not more than 6-7%. So that's pretty damn fast. This was just 5 months ago so I guess I normally descent fast so that it doesn't stick in my memory.

A Marine County ride with an ascent of 4826 feet. I wouldn't normally climb that much in one ride so that must have been a century as well but that was in
July of 2019 before the fake claims of a pandemic.

I don't know if it was the power meter of the time vs. the frontal area of me and the bike which is 7 square feet. This was late in the season as you'd expect - September 2019 and the power for 20 constant minutes was 298 watts. That was not on a downhill of course since I had to be pedaling since the Garmin had to have a cadence input.

My longest ride was the Tour de Fuzz in 2021. It was a metric century but I missed an arrow and =rode quite a bit out of the way before turning back so that was 72.43 miles.

Now I have done lots of longer and faster rides but I only started using the Garmin in 2019

Lou, these numbers suggest that my 87 mph descent 3as probably accurate but next time I go up that climb I will record the descent again. I will say that on that route and in that place I drop cars all the time unless they are sports cars trying to pass me.

[Lou Holtman]

All the numbers mentioned here I can’t believe. A power meter measures power (Watt or J/s or Nm/s or the equivelent in MickeyMouse units) not distance or time. Post your ride on Strava with all the metrics and give me the link of that Strava entry and if you done 40 km well within half an hour and or hit 87 mph I will be the first to congratulate you with that and I will inform the editors of the Guinness Book of Records to include that in their next issue.



Lou

[Tom Kunich]

OK, Last Tuesday I rode over to Moraga. The ride over is long mild climbs followed by longer milder descents. There is one spot where you can go pretty fast since it is the end of a 12% drops followed by a 180 degree turn that is sharp enough you have to coast it. On the way back there is a hard climb leaving Moraga and the rest has some very mild and very twisty turns so that most of the way you cannot go fast from the top of the last downhill the descent is only 6% with a series of hard turns with potholes in them so that you have to more or less ride the brakes except for the last 1/4 mile descent. This is a straight road so that you can spot the potholes ahead of time and avoid them. Somewhere in there I went 37 mph.

I have been thinking about it and the Garmin only measures max speed when you are pedaling or else that supposed 87 mph would have been recorded as top speed. That day I had climbed as rapidly as I could despite being tired So I had coasted all the way down and didn't start pedaling again until I hit a rise in the road having slowed to about 25

[Lou Holtman]

The Garmin records speed even if you are not pedaling. You getting more confused every time you mention Garmin.

Lou

[Tom Kunich]

On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 12:24:35 PM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
> On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 7:51:16 PM UTC+2, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > I forgot that I had a power meter on the bike for awhile. So among other records it shows:
> >
> > 40 km in 26.24 minutes. Now I have no memory of that but it must have been on a century and a very long downhill. -that's over 56 mph. While the climbs in that area tend to be VERY steep, the descents are not more than 6-7%. So that's pretty damn fast. This was just 5 months ago so I guess I normally descent fast so that it doesn't stick in my memory.
> >
> > A Marine County ride with an ascent of 4826 feet. I wouldn't normally climb that much in one ride so that must have been a century as well but that was in
> > July of 2019 before the fake claims of a pandemic.
> >
> > I don't know if it was the power meter of the time vs. the frontal area of me and the bike which is 7 square feet. This was late in the season as you'd expect - September 2019 and the power for 20 constant minutes was 298 watts. That was not on a downhill of course since I had to be pedaling since the Garmin had to have a cadence input.
> >
> > My longest ride was the Tour de Fuzz in 2021. It was a metric century but I missed an arrow and =rode quite a bit out of the way before turning back so that was 72.43 miles.
> >
> > Now I have done lots of longer and faster rides but I only started using the Garmin in 2019
> >

> > Lou, these numbers suggest that my 87 mph descent is probably accurate but next time I go up that climb I will record the descent again. I will say that on that route and in that place I drop cars all the time unless they are sports cars trying to pass me.

> All the numbers mentioned here I can’t believe. A power meter measures power (Watt or J/s or Nm/s or the equivelent in MickeyMouse units) not distance or time. Post your ride on Strava with all the metrics and give me the link of that Strava entry and if you done 40 km well within half an hour and or hit 87 mph I will be the first to congratulate you with that and I will inform the editors of the Guinness Book of Records to include that in their next issue.

298 Watts isn't Watts? I already told you that I do not post to Strava.

[Tom Kunich]

Lou, I believe that you said that you're a programmer. So you should know the capacity of a microprocessor. How would the 56 mph show up as a personal record and not record the 87? I don't remember the 56 mph but I know that on the one that I agree might not be 87 mph I was not pedaling. And in another place with a strong tailwind I was pedaling like a Froome and got 42 mph.

[Roger Merriman]

Likewise doesn’t sound believable, I’m fairly quick downhill but even so
average speed tends to be low 30’s on a longer hill, clearly will get
faster sections and so on might get into the 40’s

Averaging over 50mph with peak at 87mph at some point says the data is
wrong it’s simply not probable.

Roger Merriman

[Lou Holtman]

All nonsense. World Champion time trial today (Foss) averaged 51 km/hr over 40 minutes. That should give you a reference. Like I said before doing 100 km/hr in a descent is extremely difficult. Pro riders can hit 120 km/hr in a rare occassion on roads with no traffic. You doing 87 mph?? Your Garmin fooled you and you are too stubborn to admit that. I’m done.

Lou

[Lou Holtman]

Look at you initial post. You mention power meter and then 40 km in 26 minutes. Why are you afraid to post on Strava? You can make a private account and Email me the link. You can find me on Strava. I have no secrets. I don’t claim going 87 mph or doing 298 W for 20 minutes and I’m only 65 yo. I did a meager 45 km today because it was raining and 14 C with a fierce wind and was still tired of yesterdays ride. Everyone of my riding group stayed in, was sick or on holiday so I called it a day after 45 km.

Lou

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 18 Sep 2022 12:55:13 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I already told you that I do not post to Strava.

Why do you not post to Strava? What's your excuse?

I do not believe your amazing numbers or spectacular rides until I see
them on Strava. Proof that you actually went on a ride on a specific
day and your performance is a part of what Strava is all about. You
have the necessary equipment (Garmin Edge 830). You have already
created two Strava accounts:
<https://www.strava.com/athletes/27432450>
All you need to do now is make the connection. The most difficult part
was remembering to start and stop recording.

"Automatically Sync with Garmin Connect"
<https://support.strava.com/hc/en-us/articles/216918057>


--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Tom Kunich]

Well, I'm not misinterpreting actual numbers from the Garmin records. I am willing to believe that the sensor has some sort of flaw that allows it to mis-record speed and that is why I will report the top speed again next time I descend that drop-off. I doubt that it would be a repeated error. As for Lou's comparing what I no doubt expect was a long downhill with Foss's 32 mph ride around 24 corners per lap is probably comparing apples and oranges. Here I am averaging usually around 12 mph and having no trouble admitting that. And I know the hills around here can take a half hour to descend. There is one route that if you took it all the way it ascends all the way up the 4000 foot Mt. Hamilton. There used to be a coffee shop half way there that we would use as a metric century training. On the way back you had to climb hill but then you had 40 km of pure downhill with a slight kickup at the end followed by a steep downhill into the parking area. Once in awhile you'd get a tailwind and almost coast all the way from the top of the hill back.

Measuring that much power now would be difficult but I have good days. Especially after 4 or 5 weeks of strong headwinds. Saturday I could not believe how easy I was riding. I have to blame that on the large idler wheels and not me.

[Lou Holtman]

Blame it to the large idler rollers? Yeah right. These are in the non-tension part of the chain, but you know that, yes?

Lou

[Tom Kunich]

In general I ride alone. The Moraga Ride is usually the exception. You ride on flat ground. Why are you comparing that to what I do? I told you a fast day on flat ground usually averages 12.5 mph best. Of course that includes a dozen traffic lights. But I normally have a strong headwind on the way out and a strong tailwind on the way back.

[John B.]

" it’s simply not probable."...

You just described Tommy.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

I have no problem with most people not posting on Strava, since I have no interest in it. But I do think
that if a person has paid for the necessary hardware; has _finally_ managed to get it installed and
working; has opened a Strava account; AND if that person brags about his (literally) unbelievable
power and speeds, he really should demonstrate proof on Strava. Not doing so makes him look
either deluded, or like a liar.

But I think Tom has finally been shamed into posting something closer to the truth. "I told you a fast day
on flat ground usually averages 12.5 mph best." [sic]

Our club describes a 12.5 mph average as a "low-moderate" pace for a social ride. I think that's pretty
reasonable for a 77 year old, even without a super-duper large idler pulley - which would, of course,
provide negligible speed gain at best.

- Frank Krygowski

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 3:37:02 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> I have been thinking about it and the Garmin only measures max speed when you are pedaling

Point one - that's complete bullshit. Garmin computers record max speed regardless of cadence input (or even the lack thereof).

> or else that supposed 87 mph would have been recorded as top speed.

It's called an anomaly - Regardless of what you may think, GPS speed calculation is not flawless. Sometime it makes mistakes. Recording 87 MPH is definitely a mistake. Here's an example:

https://www.strava.com/segments/9729637?show_waiver=1 (for some reason some idiot marked the trail as dangerous so you have to click waivers in order to be able to see it. It's only dangerous if you're drunk or stupid)

This is a short MTB trail in the park I frequent. It's about 100 yards long and has a 20% average grade. The KOM belongs to a guy whose computer logged him doing it in 3 seconds,, or 73 mph. It's a sketchy part of the woods for GPS reception, so all of the top ten efforts are under 5 seconds, 10th place is 5 seconds, or 43 mph - for a trail up a 20% average grade.

> That day I had climbed as rapidly as I could despite being tired So I had coasted all the way down and didn't start pedaling again until I hit a rise in the road having slowed to about 25

You've never gone 87 on a bicycle, tommy. Ever.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

Here's a handy tool to see what it would take for tommy to hit 87 coasting:

http://kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm

I don't have tommy's actual metrics but ballparking it for 6'6 200lbs and hands in the drops - he would need a ~35% grade to hit 87. As far as his 40K in 26 minutes, all he tells us is that a record and he can't recall where he might have set it, I think it's more likely he forgot to shut it off when he put the bike in his car.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 4:53:38 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:

> Well, I'm not misinterpreting actual numbers from the Garmin records.

Yes, you are.

> I am willing to believe that the sensor has some sort of flaw that allows it to mis-record speed and that is why I will report the top speed again next time I descend that drop-off. I doubt that it would be a repeated error. As for Lou's comparing what I no doubt expect was a long downhill with Foss's 32 mph ride around 24 corners per lap is probably comparing apples and oranges. Here I am averaging usually around 12 mph and having no trouble admitting that. And I know the hills around here can take a half hour to descend. There is one route that if you took it all the way it ascends all the way up the 4000 foot Mt. Hamilton. There used to be a coffee shop half way there that we would use as a metric century training. On the way back you had to climb hill but then you had 40 km of pure downhill with a slight kickup at the end followed by a steep downhill into the parking area. Once in awhile you'd get a tailwind and almost coast all the way from the top of the hill back.

You mean this one?

https://www.strava.com/segments/599859

Professional rider Tyler Wren set the fastest total time downhill averaging 29.2 with a max of 44.6 in stage 4 of the 2011 Tour of California.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tour_of_California#Stage_4

That's about 1/2 as fast as you claim to have gone. Here's an article about the 2017 tour de Suisse:

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/pros-hit-astonishing-speeds-130kmh-tour-de-suisse-descent-335610

That the riders hit 80 mph is considered "astonishing", and yet our tommy wants our believe he hit 87. Imagine that, a guy in his mid 70's claiming to be faster downhill than the worlds top professionals. Here's one other little tidbit:

"According to Strava, Mike Teunissen and Ben King were two of a number of riders to go north of 130kmh, although we can write off Jelle Wallays' 214.6kmh and Steve Morabito's 318.2kmh as problems with the data."

Write it off as a problem with the data, tommy, you didn't hit 87.

>
> Measuring that much power now would be difficult but I have good days. Especially after 4 or 5 weeks of strong headwinds. Saturday I could not believe how easy I was riding. I have to blame that on the large idler wheels and not me.

oy vey.....

[John B.]

I walk in the mornings and the street in front of my house goes up
hill a ways and then a 90 degree corner and then straight for about a
kilometer. The distance recorded by a GPS "Walking Meter", up the hill
to the corner is, every day the same, 71 meters up the hill and 61
meters going down the hill on my return.

A good friend who sails told me that one of his favorite anchorages in
the Philippines is about 100 meters on dry land, according to the GPS.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 04:51:55 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>This is a short MTB trail in the park I frequent. It's about 100 yards long and has a 20% average grade. The KOM belongs to a guy whose computer logged him doing it in 3 seconds,, or 73 mph. It's a sketchy part of the woods for GPS reception, so all of the top ten efforts are under 5 seconds, 10th place is 5 seconds, or 43 mph - for a trail up a 20% average grade.

Erratic GPS reception is going to be a non-problem if we could ever
get a GPS with UDR (Untethered Dead Reckoning).
<https://www.u-blox.com/en/technologies/udr-untethered-dead-reckoning-0>
Basically, these use inertial navigation (accelerometer and compass)
to fill in the gaps between GPS fixes. With UDR, you could get
accurate speeds and positions while riding inside a tunnel. UDR
products are available, but not (yet) in a phone suitable for running
the Strava app:
<https://www.u-blox.com/en/press-release/navilock%E2%80%99s-new-gnss-receiver-series-features-u-blox%E2%80%99s-untethered-3d-dead-reckoning-udr>
NMEA-0183 to RS-232 via USB converters are available that will talk to
a smartphone, but the dongle and wiring mess and the added external
GPS receiver combination are probably not suitable for cycling.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 06:07:25 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>A good friend who sails told me that one of his favorite anchorages in
>the Philippines is about 100 meters on dry land, according to the GPS.

Have your friend check what datum his maps and GPS are using. They
should be the same. The default for all GPS receivers is WGS 84. He
might be using PRS92 or one of the older datums for the area, such as
Luzon 1911. Presumably, he's in one of these 5 zones:
<https://epsg.io/3121>
<https://epsg.io/3122>
<https://epsg.io/3123>
<https://epsg.io/3124>
<https://epsg.io/3125>
"Modernization of the PHILIPPINE GEODETIC REFERENCE SYSTEM"
<https://www.namria.gov.ph/jdownloads/Others/StratPlan_Modernization.pdf>

[Catrike Rider]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 09:53:02 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 04:51:55 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
><funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>This is a short MTB trail in the park I frequent. It's about 100 yards long and has a 20% average grade. The KOM belongs to a guy whose computer logged him doing it in 3 seconds,, or 73 mph. It's a sketchy part of the woods for GPS reception, so all of the top ten efforts are under 5 seconds, 10th place is 5 seconds, or 43 mph - for a trail up a 20% average grade.
>
>Erratic GPS reception is going to be a non-problem if we could ever
>get a GPS with UDR (Untethered Dead Reckoning).
><https://www.u-blox.com/en/technologies/udr-untethered-dead-reckoning-0>
>Basically, these use inertial navigation (accelerometer and compass)
>to fill in the gaps between GPS fixes. With UDR, you could get
>accurate speeds and positions while riding inside a tunnel. UDR
>products are available, but not (yet) in a phone suitable for running
>the Strava app:
><https://www.u-blox.com/en/press-release/navilock%E2%80%99s-new-gnss-receiver-series-features-u-blox%E2%80%99s-untethered-3d-dead-reckoning-udr>
>NMEA-0183 to RS-232 via USB converters are available that will talk to
>a smartphone, but the dongle and wiring mess and the added external
>GPS receiver combination are probably not suitable for cycling.

I've been using GPS for many years, for sailing, driving, hiking,
kayaking, and now bicycling. When I was sailing, I depended on it to
avoid reefs and sandbars and to safely put me through to anchorages
and docks. I've never noticed any inaccuracies beyond a few feet, and
even then, only rarely. I know many modern crop farmers use it to
guide their planting, spraying, and harvesting endeavors. The military
uses it for, among other things, to guide missile attacks. When I
ride, I have three GPS devices, my watch, my cellphone, and my Garmin
bike computer. I don't need any of them, but it's nice to be able to
see my speed on a map at any point in my ride.

[Tom Kunich]

The maximum inaccuracy of civilian GPS is 13 feet plus or minus. This only occurs when all of the satellites are on one horizon or the other. This rarely happens so the normal accuracy is very close. Military GPS corrects for all of the inaccuracies and has accuracies of about an inch all the time. This is why nuclear war is impractical from the start. All of the government leaders would be wiped out from the start and it would leave no one but military lower ranks that know that any further war is fruitless.

Lou takes the position that my Garmin reported 87 mph was a freak error of the GPS. I tend to side with him but I am not as sure as he is. Having worked on instruments like a GPS I would program them to average many readings before producing such an outlandish number. This suggests that perhaps that speed was correct. But it would only be acceptable if repeated at least with a near number.

[Jeff Liebermann]

I'm not talking about accuracy. I'm talking about getting enough GPS
location fixes (not fixies) and speed measurements to connect the
dots. GPS uses Doppler shift in order to determine speed, which is
VERY accurate. It's far more accurate than distance between fixes
divided by time. If you want details, I wrote something on the topic
in RBT a few months ago. I can try to find my rants if you're
interested. When riding through urban jungles, forests, and GPS dead
zones, the problem isn't accuracy, but rather getting enough fixes to
calculate any kind of route or speed.

UDR (untethered dead reckoning) will do the job where there are no GPS
signals. It won't do anything for your sailing, which is generally in
high signal areas. It's marginal for hiking, depending on where you
like to hike. If you're hiking through a canyon, UDR will be a big
help. If you're climbing a mountain, with a good view of the sky, it
won't be much use. For driving, UDR will help in urban canyons,
tunnels, and under bridges.

I'm quite familiar with older GPS technology used in farming. The
accuracy of such systems is dependent on using differential GPS
transmitters located on the ground near the farm. Accuracy is +/- a
few centimeters. I have some old AutoFarm hardware that was used for
the plowing:
<https://precisionagricultu.re/autofarm-gps-precision-farming-paradyme/>
There's no need for UDR on a farm, where signal obstructions are
unlikely. The military has the money to buy all the latest toys. They
probably already have UDR GPS receivers. However, UDR won't do
anything useful in a missile or airplane, which presumably have the
best possible view of the sky.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 10:45:56 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The maximum inaccuracy of civilian GPS is 13 feet plus or minus.

Wrong. Please stop inventing numbers for your convenience. Show your
source or your calculations and I might believe your numbers.

>This only occurs when all of the satellites are on one horizon or the other.

Wrong. The Doppler shift change from a given satellite is zero at
both the horizon and at zenith (directly overhead). When all the
satellite are at the horizon, you nothing.

>This rarely happens so the normal accuracy is very close.

Actually, it does happen quite often in a building with lots of
windows and a roof impervious to RF.

>Military GPS corrects for all of the inaccuracies and has
>accuracies of about an inch all the time.

No, it doesn't. All that a "military" GPS does is use additional
encrypted "military only" frequencies which are used along with the
civilian frequencies to provide a better correction for atmospheric
diffraction.

>This is why nuclear war is impractical from the start. All of
>the government leaders would be wiped out from the start and it
>would leave no one but military lower ranks that know that any
>further war is fruitless.

Have you considered a career writing science fiction? That would make
a tolerable plot for a movie.

>Lou takes the position that my Garmin reported 87 mph was
>a freak error of the GPS. I tend to side with him but I am
>not as sure as he is.

Perhaps if you searched for a similar problem? I posted this
previously, but apparently you were too busy complaining to notice.
<https://forums.garmin.com/apps-software/mobile-apps-web/f/garmin-connect-web/52217/max-speed-error>
"Max speed reported was 82 mph!"

>Having worked on instruments like a GPS I would program them
>to average many readings before producing such an outlandish
>number. This suggests that perhaps that speed was correct.
>But it would only be acceptable if repeated at least with a
>near number.

Baloney, but I don't have time to fix your mistakes. Gone for lunch
with some friends.

[Catrike Rider]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 11:26:10 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>

I understand... Thanks for the clarification I do ride through some
heavily wooded areas and haven't noticed any loss of GPS there The
only times my Garmin tells me it lost satilite connections is a couple
of places on bridges where there was a lot of overhead metal
structure. I don't know how long it needs to lose connection before it
lets me know.

[Catrike Rider]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 11:43:16 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

For what's worth, my Garmin does not normally depend on GPS to
calulate my speed and Distance. I have a sensor wrapped around one of
my front axles that transmits rotation count. It does use GPS to
recalulate length of a wheel rotation. If I lose the sensor (battery),
the GPS will take over those functions and they are not nearly as
accurate.

[Tom Kunich]

As usual you cannot believe anything that Liebermann says. Doppler shift is not measureable in most areas. If you set your Garmin up to use ONLY GPS for speed and distance when you turn it on you can see the speed of the satellite across the sky over you as you show anywhere from .1 to ,25 mph and sometimes higher. This is why you use sensors for speed and distance. The software automatically corrects for the wheel diameter and is more accurate the further the distance is you travel.

As for doppler shift - https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Doppler-Shift-Prediction-Accuracy_fig2_352548023 As you can see that it is not accurate without long term averaging. I worked on the doppler for bombing control on B52's and while it is useful it is hardly "very accurate".

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 14:09:20 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich

>Doppler shift is not measureable in most areas. If you set your Garmin up to use ONLY GPS for speed and distance when you turn it on you can see the speed of the satellite across the sky over you as you show anywhere from .1 to ,25 mph and sometimes higher.

Wrong again. When you're not moving, the small residual movement is
caused by GPS timing uncertainty and clock jitter. If you plot your
positions on a scatter plot, you get something like this:
<https://www.visualgps.net/VisualGPSView/images/ssScatter.png>

>This is why you use sensors for speed and distance. The software
>automatically corrects for the wheel diameter and is more accurate
>the further the distance is you travel.

That works badly if you loose tire pressure or if you didn't calibrate
it correctly, which can change the effective tire diameter.

>As for doppler shift - https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Doppler-Shift-Prediction-Accuracy_fig2_352548023
>As you can see that it is not accurate without long term averaging.

Wrong. What I see is that the author demonstrated that averaging
improves positional accuracy. That works great if you're not moving
such as is common with various surveying apps. Averaging doesn't work
while moving, unless you're going really slow. Please find a link
that substantiates what you're claiming and please stop confusing
positional accuracy with velocity accuracy.

>I worked on the doppler for bombing control on B52's and while it
>is useful it is hardly "very accurate".

Wrong. See:
<https://www.onosokki.co.jp/English/hp_e/products/keisoku/automotive/lc8_principle.htm>
"In this method, the speed of the moving object can be calculated
extremely more precisely than the calculation method using the amount
of position change, because it receives almost none of the influence
from the ionosphere. The accuracy of its horizontal component is
0.003 m/s when 2 sigma, 0.08 m/s when 3 sigma".

Remember, this is about velocity (speed) and not position accuracy.
0.08 meters/sec speed accuracy is far more accurate than anything that
uses distance divided by time to calculate velocity.

Notice that the above URL is about using UDR (unteathered dead
reconning) to improve vehicular GPS when there are insufficient number
of satellites to obtain a postition or velocity. See the illustration
at the bottom of the page showing the signal drop out.

100% perfect score again. Everything you have to offer is wrong.

[John B.]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 10:08:24 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 06:07:25 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>A good friend who sails told me that one of his favorite anchorages in
>>the Philippines is about 100 meters on dry land, according to the GPS.
>
>Have your friend check what datum his maps and GPS are using. They
>should be the same. The default for all GPS receivers is WGS 84. He
>might be using PRS92 or one of the older datums for the area, such as
>Luzon 1911. Presumably, he's in one of these 5 zones:
><https://epsg.io/3121>
><https://epsg.io/3122>
><https://epsg.io/3123>
><https://epsg.io/3124>
><https://epsg.io/3125>
>"Modernization of the PHILIPPINE GEODETIC REFERENCE SYSTEM"
><https://www.namria.gov.ph/jdownloads/Others/StratPlan_Modernization.pdf>

This was quite a number of years ago but he probably was aware of map
and GPS datum as this was after he made his first circumnavigation, so
it wasn't as though he was a novice (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 11:26:10 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>

I was going to ask you about that as way back when I was involved in
oil well drilling in West Papua (Irian Jaya) which were located
referenced to seismic locations that the Seismic guys told us were
accurate to feet.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 14:49:21 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>

And I'll bet this came as a great surprise?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 14:49:21 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>

You might have noticed Tommy mentioning taking a "Carbamazepine"
tablet. I googled this medication and it is often proscribed for
"Bipolar disorder" which is described as " a mental health condition
that affects your moods, which can swing from one extreme to another.
It used to be known as manic depression" and during the maniac phase
the following are mentioned as common

talking very quickly
feeling self-important
feeling full of great new ideas and having important plans
being easily distracted
being easily irritated or agitated
being delusional, having hallucinations and disturbed or illogical
thinking

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Tom Kunich]

Since I was checking my Google mailbox there was Liebermann again being as stupid as humanly possible. What an ass - The B52D was manufactured in 1955 and 1956. I was in the Air Force from 1961 to 1967. Why do you suppose that stupid jackass is talking about GPS when the FIRST satellite wasn't launched until 1973 or so? He has turned into nothing but another copy of Slocum who knows nothing but can use Google like a possum. between the two of them I bet that they can get absolutely anything and everything wrong from the ACTUAL death count from Covid-19 which I showed you the CDC page on Covid-19 death count where there were only 8,000 killed by the illness that is less severe than seasonal flu. Do people die from it? Sure, they ALSO die by the thousands each bad flu year.

There isn't one thing that these dopes could get right if you paid them a million dollars to go to a physicist and ask him to explain it to them. A life of stupidity.

[John B.]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 17:17:18 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich

>> As for doppler shift - r As you can see that it is not accurate without long term averaging. I worked

on the doppler for bombing control on B52's and while it is useful it
is hardly "very accurate".
>
>Since I was checking my Google mailbox there was Liebermann again being as stupid as humanly possible. What an ass - The B52D was manufactured in 1955 and 1956. I was in the Air Force from 1961 to 1967. Why do you suppose that stupid jackass is talking about GPS when the FIRST satellite wasn't launched until 1973 or so? He has turned into nothing but another copy of Slocum who knows nothing but can use Google like a possum. between the two of them I bet that they can get absolutely anything and everything wrong from the ACTUAL death count from Covid-19 which I showed you the CDC page on Covid-19 death count where there were only 8,000 killed by the illness that is less severe than seasonal flu. Do people die from it? Sure, they ALSO die by the thousands each bad flu year.
>
>There isn't one thing that these dopes could get right if you paid them a million dollars to go to a physicist and ask him to explain it to them. A life of stupidity.

Well, lets see...
Lie number 1 (today)
CDC Covid death count - 8,000 killed
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home
Total Deaths
1,049,101

Lie number 2 (Or maybe stupidity #1)
Jeff writes - I worked

on the doppler for bombing control on B52's

Tommy goes rattling on about when he was in the Air Force.

Reality:
The B-52 was equipped with the AN/APN-89 Doppler Ground Speed
Computer.
So it is possible that Jeff did, in fact, work on a "B-52 doppler
system".

So... silly old Tommy falls on his arse once again... right out in
front of everybody


As for Google that Tommy disparages so frequently.

Well, you can't blame him. After all, if you state a "fact" then
Google wants you to post a reference proving that your "fact" is true.
and this presents an insurmountable problem for Tommy, "You want a
reference? But I just told you? You mean you want proof?"
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 05:49:49 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 10:08:24 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 06:07:25 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>>A good friend who sails told me that one of his favorite anchorages in
>>>the Philippines is about 100 meters on dry land, according to the GPS.
>>
>>Have your friend check what datum his maps and GPS are using. They
>>should be the same. The default for all GPS receivers is WGS 84. He
>>might be using PRS92 or one of the older datums for the area, such as
>>Luzon 1911. Presumably, he's in one of these 5 zones:
>><https://epsg.io/3121>
>><https://epsg.io/3122>
>><https://epsg.io/3123>
>><https://epsg.io/3124>
>><https://epsg.io/3125>
>>"Modernization of the PHILIPPINE GEODETIC REFERENCE SYSTEM"
>><https://www.namria.gov.ph/jdownloads/Others/StratPlan_Modernization.pdf>

>This was quite a number of years ago but he probably was aware of map
>and GPS datum as this was after he made his first circumnavigation, so
>it wasn't as though he was a novice (:-)

I probably should have been more diplomatic, but I had no way to
determine the expertise of the sailor. I've been in the repair
business long enough to realize that even the most competent person
can sometimes miss the obvious or bungle the basics. I've done both
all too often. So, when someone hands me difficult problem, I always
start with the basics and try to verify any assumptions. I've heard
stories about international sailors missing the Santa Cruz harbor
entrance in the fog because their GPS map was still setup with a datum
from their foreign port of origin. However, those were small errors
of much less than 40 meters (width of the channel at low tide) and not
a relatively huge 100 meter error.
<https://www.santacruzharbor.org/entrance-sounding/>
Still, large datum error are possible:
<https://www.maptools.com/tutorials/map_datum>
"An incorrect datum, can put you hundreds of meters from your actual
position"

So, I resorted to a guess(tm) of what might cause such a large error.
I don't know about the Philippines, but I've seen overlays of old maps
onto a WGS84 modern datum show such larger errors. I really don't
know if it was a datum error, mapping error, survey error, naming
error, human error etc. It's probably too late to determine the cause
today.

Incidentally, some map errors I've seen (and had to deal with) were
errors caused the by the change from older NAD27 datum to the newer
WGS84 datum. (I still run into printed USGS maps that use NAD27).
I'll spare you the details but for many years, the city of Santa Cruz
was misplaced about 50 meters east-west depending on which datum was
in use. About 30(?) years ago, the county put white "X" marks on some
manhole covers and ran aerial photographic surveys. More recently,
LIDAR surveys.
<https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/data/coastallidar.html>
<https://coast.noaa.gov/dataviewer/#/lidar/search/>
Thanks to modern surveying techniques, my property line is well into
the adjacent property thanks mostly to continental drift, datum
changes and map accuracy errors. Since the survey markers (monuments)
also move with continental drift, it's not much of a problem until we
have an earthquake along one of the local faults:
<https://gis.santacruzcounty.us/DPWScans/recordmaps/089M19.pdf>
I can't find the online database, but each survey marker has an
extensive history. In about 2000, I helped some students find some of
these markers. They discovered that a few had moved thanks to
construction. Oops.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 06:06:45 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 14:49:21 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>wrote:

>>100% perfect score again. Everything you have to offer is wrong.

>And I'll bet this came as a great surprise?

Yes, this was a surprise, especially since I had previously corrected
two of his amazing facts. Even the most incompetent person usually
guesses correctly some of the time. Even on topics I know nothing
about, I could usually manage to get about 20% correct based on logic
and random guesses. However, Tom consistently scores 100% wrong on so
many diverse topics. The only way he could conceivably be so badly
wrong is to know the right answers, but intentionally provide wrong
answers. I think I understand how he generates consistently wrong
answers, but I fail to understand why. I've always assumed that it
was a good thing to be correct. But, is there some benefit to being
always wrong? Perhaps attracting attention to himself?

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 06:28:44 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>You might have noticed Tommy mentioning taking a "Carbamazepine"
>tablet. I googled this medication and it is often proscribed for
>"Bipolar disorder" which is described as " a mental health condition
>that affects your moods, which can swing from one extreme to another.
>It used to be known as manic depression" and during the maniac phase
>the following are mentioned as common
>
>talking very quickly
>feeling self-important
>feeling full of great new ideas and having important plans
>being easily distracted
>being easily irritated or agitated
>being delusional, having hallucinations and disturbed or illogical
>thinking

<https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/conditions/bipolar-disorder/symptoms/>

A friend has bipolar disorder. His entire family is like that, to
varying degrees. He has some of the symptoms listed, but not all of
them. He's been able to moderate the mood swings using drugs and
diet. He's currently a programmer and doing very well working almost
totally at home. One characteristic is that the mood swings occur
fairly rapidly. The longest I've seen him in manic mode was about 12
hrs after which he swung into about an hour of depression. Usually,
the mood swings last 1 to 3 hrs. That's not Tom. He seems to always
be in manic mode, which is hardly bipolar.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 10:47:42 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Lie number 2 (Or maybe stupidity #1)
>Jeff writes - I worked
>on the doppler for bombing control on B52's

Nope. Tom brought up the B52 in a previous tantrum.

<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/RwWhR9koTg0/m/m7G86fcGAwAJ>
"...As you can see that it is not accurate without long term
averaging. I worked on the Doppler for bombing control on B52's and

while it is useful it is hardly "very accurate"."

Incidentally, there's no connection between Doppler shift and whatever
"long term averaging" might be. Averaging what?

>Tommy goes rattling on about when he was in the Air Force.
>
>Reality:
>The B-52 was equipped with the AN/APN-89 Doppler Ground Speed
>Computer.
>So it is possible that Jeff did, in fact, work on a "B-52 doppler
>system".

Nope, not me. I've worked on non-military avionics, nothing that
might go into a B-52. However, I believe that some of the radars of
the day used Doppler to reduce ground clutter by only displaying
moving objects.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_radar>
(Incidentally, the "history" section story about Dan Rather, Doppler
radar and Hurricane Carla is rather interesting).

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 06:03:22 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 11:26:10 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>wrote:

>>I'm quite familiar with older GPS technology used in farming. The
>>accuracy of such systems is dependent on using differential GPS
>>transmitters located on the ground near the farm. Accuracy is +/- a
>>few centimeters. I have some old AutoFarm hardware that was used for
>>the plowing:
>><https://precisionagricultu.re/autofarm-gps-precision-farming-paradyme/>
>>There's no need for UDR on a farm, where signal obstructions are
>>unlikely. The military has the money to buy all the latest toys. They
>>probably already have UDR GPS receivers. However, UDR won't do
>>anything useful in a missile or airplane, which presumably have the
>>best possible view of the sky.

>I was going to ask you about that as way back when I was involved in
>oil well drilling in West Papua (Irian Jaya) which were located
>referenced to seismic locations that the Seismic guys told us were
>accurate to feet.

Many feet accuracy. When I mumble something about GPS farming, it's
not accuracy that's important. It's resolution. When plowing a
field, nobody cares about the exact location of the property boundary,
which is what accuracy is all about. They care exactly how far apart
and straight are the furrows (trench made by a plow), which requires
resolution and precision. So, a DGPS marker is placed somewhere on
the field, and all measurements are made from the marker. That means
the furrows can be closer together for higher crop yield. Having the
furrows in straight lines is useful for reducing irrigation
requirements and guiding a harvester.

Accuracy, resolution and precision:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=accuracy+resolution+precision>

[John B.]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 21:51:06 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>

I wasn't upset nor probably would my friend have been (:-) But most
who sail in international waters do read the information block on the
chart that they are using. I once came across a chart, in a used chart
shop, of some South Sea Islands marked "Based on the survey made by
the HMS Whatever in 1790". I kept it for quite a while to show people
when discussions of charting came up. I reckoned that if I was
actually using it I'd be a bit cautious about depending on it (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

5On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 22:39:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann

Re B-52 bombing in Vietnam read
https://www.airforcemag.com/article/0606bombing/
Here is this multi gazillion dollar, super dooper, bomber and they
can't hit the target.

By the way I worked at two of the Thailand bases where the so called
Sky Spot radar systems were sited and they were super secret. Had
their own enclosure, armed guards at the gate and so on. And the
security was effective too. I asked about "what do they do there" and
nobody knew.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 8:17:20 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 2:09:22 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:

> >
> > As for doppler shift - https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Doppler-Shift-Prediction-Accuracy_fig2_352548023 As you can see that it is not accurate without long term averaging. I worked on the doppler for bombing control on B52's and while it is useful it is hardly "very accurate".
> Since I was checking my Google mailbox there was Liebermann again being as stupid as humanly possible. What an ass - The B52D was manufactured in 1955 and 1956.

Attempt at distraction duly noted. No one mentioned anything about any specific model of B52. Besides that, the D variant was released in december of 1956, so you're wrong about that too.

> I was in the Air Force from 1961 to 1967. Why do you suppose that stupid jackass is talking about GPS when the FIRST satellite wasn't launched until 1973 or so?

Because this conversation is about GPS, not doppler radar. You for some inexplicable reason brought up doppler radar in a conversation about GPS. Your work (?) on doppler radar has absolutely nothing to do with a conversation on GPS. Why did _you_ bring up doppler radar in a discussion about CPS, you stupid jackass?

> He has turned into nothing but another copy of Slocum who knows nothing but can use Google like a possum.

Possums can use google? That makes them one step ahead of you.

> between the two of them I bet that they can get absolutely anything and everything wrong from the
> ACTUAL death count from Covid-19 which I showed you the CDC page on Covid-19 death count where
> there were only 8,000 killed by the illness that is less severe than seasonal flu. Do people die from it?
> Sure, they ALSO die by the thousands each bad flu year.

This again...Give it up, sparky. We've shown repeatedly how you intentionally misread the CDC data. You're lying, and we all know it.

> There isn't one thing that these dopes could get right if you paid them a million dollars to go to a physicist and ask him to explain it to them. A life of stupidity.

Find us a physicist who agrees that PWM is used to test cables.
Shut the fuck up, tommy

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 04:57:47 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Because this conversation is about GPS, not doppler radar. You for some inexplicable reason brought up doppler radar in a conversation about GPS. Your work (?) on doppler radar has absolutely nothing to do with a conversation on GPS. Why did _you_ bring up doppler radar in a discussion about CPS, you stupid jackass?

Umm... that was my fault. I mentioned that GPS speed is measured by
using Doppler shift, not by dividing distance between positions by
time. Doppler is more accurate because there are no errors produced
by atmospheric diffraction. Tom used that as a launch platform to
switch topic from bicycle riding speeds to B52.

>Find us a physicist who agrees that PWM is used to test cables.
>Shut the fuck up, tommy

I want to see some of his rides appear on Strava. Until I see real
results that match his descriptions, I don't believe any of his
descriptions.

Gone for another walk in the park. Hopefully two hours of trudging
and discussing politics.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 10:43:10 AM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 04:57:47 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Because this conversation is about GPS, not doppler radar. You for some inexplicable reason brought up doppler radar in a conversation about GPS. Your work (?) on doppler radar has absolutely nothing to do with a conversation on GPS. Why did _you_ bring up doppler radar in a discussion about CPS, you stupid jackass?
> Umm... that was my fault. I mentioned that GPS speed is measured by
> using Doppler shift, not by dividing distance between positions by
> time.

Not to my understanding. Doppler shift is the compression/expansion of the frequency from a known source in reference to a known receiver. GPS is fundamentally a positioning tool - triangulation from timestamps versus arrival time on the receiver. This is shown by the NMEA string of the receiver output. That isn't doppler shift, in fact, doppler shift could corrupt the GPS data if it forces the carrier frequency to shift outside the limits of the receiver.. The speed calculated from GPS is a function of the distance traveled between established positions over time.

> Doppler is more accurate because there are no errors produced
> by atmospheric diffraction.

Not sure what that means. The receiver must lock onto the various satellites carrier frequencies to extract the timestamp data. Doppler shift may be compensated for in the receiver (knowing the Fr shift as a function of the direction traveled) but I'm pretty sure doppler isn't used as part of the positioning or speed calculations.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 12:05:31 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"

"GPS Speedometer Principle of speed measurement using GPS"
<https://www.onosokki.co.jp/English/hp_e/products/keisoku/automotive/lc8_principle.htm>

"The Ionospheric Effect"
<https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog862/node/1715>
"One of the largest errors in GPS positioning is attributable to the
atmosphere."

"Doppler GPS speed and heading"
<https://forums.garmin.com/developer/connect-iq/f/discussion/7609/doppler-gps-speed-and-heading>

"How does a GNSS receiver estimate velocity?"
<https://insidegnss.com/how-does-a-gnss-receiver-estimate-velocity/>
"Improved performance could be achieved by processing differences of
consecutive carrier phase measurements (TDCP – time-differenced
carrier phase), a strategy that enables velocity accuracies one order
of magnitude better than the “raw” Doppler measurements output from
the receiver’s tracking loops."

I'm not sure about this one, but this GPS bicycle speedometer outputs
only altitude, speed and time, which it uses to calculate distance.
<https://www.amazon.com/MEILAN-Computer-Wireless-Speedometer-Waterproof/dp/B07SM5QLW3/>
No position (lat-long) output. The chip might be capable of producing
lat-long and using that and the clock to calculate speed, but it
(probably) doesn't and instead just displays Doppler speed.

More later...

[John B.]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 16:45:51 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>

I don't know about the bicycle meters but my walking meter (Simply
Walking) has the ability to show a map and your location on the map as
you walk. I had always assumed that was how distance and speed was
calculated.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 06:56:18 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

"Assumption, the mother of all screwups". I hate to admit it, but I
made the same assumption for many years after GPS Doppler speed
measurement was introduced. I was duly notified of my error in
sci.geo.satellite-nav newsgroup.

"Development of an Electronic Speed Measurement System for Evaluating
the Accuracy of GNSS Receivers and Statistical Analysis of Their
Performance in Speed Measurements"
<https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1058.3601&rep=rep1&type=pdf>
See Section 2.2 for some history of how we got here:

"The early days GPS receivers used distance over time based method for
speed determination. As distance between neighboring two position
records can be calculated by the receiver and time between such
records is known, it is possible to calculate speed. This method is
inaccurate because it depends on positional accuracy, frequency of
positional measurements and curvature of the road."

"The next generation of receivers started to use the so
called Doppler based methodologies for speed determination.
They might be split into raw Doppler method and method
based on Carrier Phase observations..."

Note that there is some discussion on "outliers" which are data points
that deviate radically from normal data. See section 4.2. Such very
high speeds and "outliers" are probably what several people observed
on their Garmin maximum speed records.

"Medium range and low grade GPS receivers generated relatively
substantial number of measurement outliers around overpasses with up
to 10 km/h reported errors in speed measurements. In addition, the
medium range receiver generated relatively high numbers of outliers in
the areas where tree canopies surround some sections of the road."

In other words, some GPS receivers (or firmware) are junk.

Also, if you search the document for "Doppler", you'll find that speed
measurement is heavily tied to Doppler shift measurement.

[John B.]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 21:50:08 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>

Well (:-) When making an open ocean trip, on a sail boat, one
calculates the speed by marking up the position for the "Noon Fix"
and measuring the distance from the last "Noon Fix" and dividing by 24

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 12:39:05 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Well (:-) When making an open ocean trip, on a sail boat, one
>calculates the speed by marking up the position for the "Noon Fix"
>and measuring the distance from the last "Noon Fix" and dividing by 24
>(:-)

Nope. The navigator throws a floating "chip log" overboard, with a
knotted rope attached. The rope knots are spaced 17 ft apart. The
navigator counts how many knots go through his hands in 10 seconds. If
5 knots pass through the navigators hands in 10 seconds, the vessel
speed is 5 knots. If you want mph, a speed of 1 knot equals about
1.15 mph. One could probably do this on a bicycle, but I don't think
it would be very accurate (or easy).

Noon sights will work, but it's easier to just read the speed off the
GPS display.

About 20 years ago, I showed a group of high skool students how a
sextant was used to calculate longitude. Most could not believe that
sailors went through all the calculations and that navigators used
sight reduction tables (HO 229), plotting tables, and "drafting"
instruments. The consensus was that it was "too complicated to be
useful". Sigh.

[John B.]

rOn Thu, 22 Sep 2022 23:53:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann

<je...@cruzio.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 12:39:05 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Well (:-) When making an open ocean trip, on a sail boat, one
>>calculates the speed by marking up the position for the "Noon Fix"
>>and measuring the distance from the last "Noon Fix" and dividing by 24
>>(:-)
>
>Nope. The navigator throws a floating "chip log" overboard, with a
>knotted rope attached. The rope knots are spaced 17 ft apart. The
>navigator counts how many knots go through his hands in 10 seconds. If
>5 knots pass through the navigators hands in 10 seconds, the vessel
>speed is 5 knots. If you want mph, a speed of 1 knot equals about
>1.15 mph. One could probably do this on a bicycle, but I don't think
>it would be very accurate (or easy).

Certainly, that is where the term "knot" referring to boat speed
originated but I would also say that in some 20 years of "boating"
including a couple of open ocean trips I have NEVER seen the system
actually used, (:-) But, I'm not too sure about your 10 second timing.
Remember that measuring spead with a "chip log" dates back to the
16th century and I'm not sure that one's pocket watch was calibrated
in seconds, way back then (:-) Somewhere I have the memory that a 30
second sand glass was the standard.

>Noon sights will work, but it's easier to just read the speed off the
>GPS display.
>
>About 20 years ago, I showed a group of high skool students how a
>sextant was used to calculate longitude. Most could not believe that
>sailors went through all the calculations and that navigators used
>sight reduction tables (HO 229), plotting tables, and "drafting"
>instruments. The consensus was that it was "too complicated to be
>useful". Sigh.

Well, "way back when" it was probably the mark of a qualified mariner,
but as you say there was a bit of figuring in it and it did need an
accurate time source. I started sailing before GPS existed and what I
did was get a time signal from the radio to set my watch (:-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

I stand corrected!
I could have sworn I read the position was a triangulation based on a time stamp on the signal. After reading your links I don't know where I could have gotten that idea. I have a modicum of satcom experience (data communication, not GPS). My first "real" job (as an intern, actually) was working for a company that had made a practical burst-mode microwave link analyzer, using a novel method of a swept frequency burst inserted into a TDMA time slot. Conventional MLAs require that the link be taken off-line for equalization - this method allowed for constant monitoring using any empty timeslot. This equalization compensated for frequency response and group delay but had to account for phase shift. I seem to remember some discussions regarding the effect of polarity shift as well ...this was back in the late 80's, I might be confusing that with something else. They went into production with the product, Intelsat and Eutelsat bought a few hundred of them.
Of course my experience is only tangential at best to this discussion - back the regularly scheduled programming.

[Roger Merriman]

Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 06:56:18 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 16:45:51 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 12:05:31 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>>> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 10:43:10 AM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 04:57:47 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>>>>> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>

Huge snips.
w

>
> In other words, some GPS receivers (or firmware) are junk.

That certainly has been my experience each time I bought a new phone (use
sat nav app) or less frequently GPS computer seems to be more accurate, I
certainly remember older units getting very confused as to which road/trail
I was on thinking I was on a parallel road or so on.
>

Clearly some could be software ie locking on to the road/trail etc when
navigating though the GPS traces seem tighter.

> Also, if you search the document for "Doppler", you'll find that speed
> measurement is heavily tied to Doppler shift measurement.
>

Roger Merriman

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 12:50:16 AM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Also, if you search the document for "Doppler", you'll find that speed
> measurement is heavily tied to Doppler shift measurement.
> --

Doppler radar is precisely how every law enforcement radar speed "monitoring" system works. (now watch Jeff prove me wrong again).

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 11:41:11 AM UTC-4, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 06:56:18 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 16:45:51 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 12:05:31 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> >>> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 10:43:10 AM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 04:57:47 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> >>>>> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> Huge snips.
> w
> >
> > In other words, some GPS receivers (or firmware) are junk.
> That certainly has been my experience each time I bought a new phone (use
> sat nav app) or less frequently GPS computer seems to be more accurate, I
> certainly remember older units getting very confused as to which road/trail
> I was on thinking I was on a parallel road or so on.
> >
>
> Clearly some could be software ie locking on to the road/trail etc when
> navigating though the GPS traces seem tighter.

There are a couple of single-track Strava segments in my local park that parallel decently maintained carriage roads. It seems like they should be far enough apart for Strava to tell the difference (never closer the ~20 feet except for the entry points), but the app keeps assigning users of the carriage roads to the single track so the KOMs are set by carriage road riders doing 30+ MPH on CX bikes. Looking at the strava ride data, it's pretty obvious when you're on the carriage road vs the single track, but try to tell the Strava algorithm that....

[Roger Merriman]

One of the woods has two parallel tracks one is very rooty and Sandy and
git to clear quite frankly, the other much less so! So your times vary
hugely yet the Strava segment is mostly the same one.

>
>
>>> Also, if you search the document for "Doppler", you'll find that speed
>>> measurement is heavily tied to Doppler shift measurement.
>>>
>> Roger Merriman
>

Roger Merriman.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 11:18:14 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 12:50:16 AM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Also, if you search the document for "Doppler", you'll find that speed
>> measurement is heavily tied to Doppler shift measurement.

>Doppler radar is precisely how every law enforcement radar speed "monitoring" system works. (now watch Jeff prove me wrong again).

Yep. There are other systems (monopulse, phased array, CW, etc) that
will provide other useful information besides speed, such as which
freeway lane the speeding car is in. Mobile speed guns are mostly IR
laser:
<https://kustomsignals.com/handheld-lidar/prolaser-4>
while fixed installations (automatic speed traps) use RF.

Incidentally, I have two really ancient 24GHz Kustom Road Runner radar
guns. Plenty fun measuring the speed of passing cyclists and
calibrating my car speedometer.
<https://photos.app.goo.gl/92mdDZmTuCQUPEpK9>

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 4:54:56 PM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 11:18:14 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 12:50:16 AM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Also, if you search the document for "Doppler", you'll find that speed
> >> measurement is heavily tied to Doppler shift measurement.
> >Doppler radar is precisely how every law enforcement radar speed "monitoring" system works. (now watch Jeff prove me wrong again).
> Yep. There are other systems (monopulse, phased array, CW, etc) that
> will provide other useful information besides speed, such as which
> freeway lane the speeding car is in. Mobile speed guns are mostly IR
> laser:
> <https://kustomsignals.com/handheld-lidar/prolaser-4>
> while fixed installations (automatic speed traps) use RF.
>
> Incidentally, I have two really ancient 24GHz Kustom Road Runner radar
> guns. Plenty fun measuring the speed of passing cyclists and
> calibrating my car speedometer.
> <https://photos.app.goo.gl/92mdDZmTuCQUPEpK9>
> --

Right, I got a radar detector as a present a few years ago that has a Lidar detector as well. I really can't use it in my area becasue there are so many other sources that set off the radar section. When I did have it in the car I don't think the lidar warning ever went off, but I had to keep it turned off most of the time since my commute at the time took me through a long section of strip malls with automatic door openers to the stores. You'd think the FCC would have set aside a different band for that.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 02:11:01 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I stand corrected!
>I could have sworn I read the position was a triangulation based on a time stamp on the signal.

It was like that in the early days of GPS before 2000. The first
handheld GPS was in 1989 (Magellan Nav1000). From skimming GPS World
magazine archives,
<https://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-systemalgorithms-methodsinnovation-doppler-aided-positioning-11601/>
my guess is the first usable Doppler based speed displays were in
2000, when selective availability finally was turned off. That's
because the clock jitter intentionally introduced to make selective
availability work also reduced the accuracy of velocity measurements.
There was equipment prior to 2000 that used Doppler to display
velocity because even with selective availability, Doppler was better
than a distance divided by time method.

>After reading your links I don't know where I could have gotten
>that idea.

As I mentioned in a different reply in this thread, I had the same
wrong idea and was corrected in sci.geo.satellite-nav newsgroup.

>I have a modicum of satcom experience (data communication, not
>GPS). My first "real" job (as an intern, actually) was working
>for a company that had made a practical burst-mode microwave
>link analyzer, using a novel method of a swept frequency burst
>inserted into a TDMA time slot.

Methinks that's roughly how digital cable TV works. Fill the channel
with spread spectrum (noise) at a level just below the maximum channel
power handling capability. Then, tweak the channel tilt, shape and
group delay everything looks nice. The mux can be temporarily set to
provide a time slot where there's no interfering traffic.

>Conventional MLAs require that the link be taken off-line for
>equalization - this method allowed for constant monitoring
>using any empty timeslot. This equalization compensated for
>frequency response and group delay but had to account for
>phase shift.

Phase delay is a single frequency version of group delay.

>I seem to remember some discussions regarding the effect of
>polarity shift as well ...this was back in the late 80's, I
>might be confusing that with something else.

Polarity? Do you mean polarization shift as in Faraday rotation?
That's a function of the RF path and the earth's magnetic field.
However, if you really want to mangle an RF signal, try putting
obstructions in the Fresnel Zone's along the path.

>They went into production with the product, Intelsat and
>Eutelsat bought a few hundred of them.

If the link analyzer was capable of doing offline channel
equalization, it would have been revolutionary in the late 1980's.
Back then, the big thing was BITE (built in test equipment). The
obvious benefit was continuous quality monitoring and impairment
correction without a rack full of equipment and expensive downtime. I
think the pitch line was something like: "Now that you have it
working, how would you like to make it reliable?"

>Of course my experience is only tangential at best to this
>discussion - back the regularly scheduled programming.

What were we discussing? I forgot. Actually, I also forgot which
newsgroup I was writing.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 14:42:57 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 02:11:01 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
><funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I stand corrected!
>>I could have sworn I read the position was a triangulation based on a time stamp on the signal.
>
>It was like that in the early days of GPS before 2000. The first
>handheld GPS was in 1989 (Magellan Nav1000). From skimming GPS World
>magazine archives,
><https://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-systemalgorithms-methodsinnovation-doppler-aided-positioning-11601/>
>my guess is the first usable Doppler based speed displays were in
>2000, when selective availability finally was turned off. That's
>because the clock jitter intentionally introduced to make selective
>availability work also reduced the accuracy of velocity measurements.
>There was equipment prior to 2000 that used Doppler to display
>velocity because even with selective availability, Doppler was better
>than a distance divided by time method.

(chomp)
Something to think about concerning the accuracy of using successive
GPS positions divided by time to calculate speed. The basic accuracy
of GPS positions is limited by a large number of parameters. Over
time the error can be over several meters. For a fixed location, it
looks like this:
<https://www.visualgps.net/VisualGPSView/images/ssScatter.png>
Now, visualize trying to connect the dots between two consecutive
position reports and calculate the distance. The distance can be
anything between any of the points on either mess. Since the pattern
is mostly incoherent noise, there's no correlation between two
consecutive points. It's possible to average each positions, but that
would take so long that the speed indication response time would be
horrible.

Worse, let's say we have a bicycle going at 9 meters/sec (20 mph). The
update rate for GPS is typically once every 2 seconds. So, in 2
seconds, the bicycle moves 18 meters. However, the rms error on my
phone GPS is about +/-3 meters. So, the 18 meter distance needed to
get the exact correct speed could be anywhere between 18 +/-6 meters
or 12 to 24 meters between position reports. (It's 6 meters because
there are two points, each with an error radius of 3 meters). Even
so, the number would easily switch between extremes (because they
random) making on reading 12 meters and the next reading 24 meters.
Such a GPS speedometer would have a display that looked like a Las
Vegas slot machine.

Translation: Even with todays improved constellations and
corrections, using distance divided by time will produce a really
awful speedometer.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

Yup, I see a lot of this

https://www.strava.com/activities/4424213642

That was actually in my basement (the lower building) but it has me running around between my and my neighbors yards.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 5:43:04 PM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 02:11:01 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I stand corrected!
> >I could have sworn I read the position was a triangulation based on a time stamp on the signal.
> It was like that in the early days of GPS before 2000. The first
> handheld GPS was in 1989 (Magellan Nav1000).

Ah, so I'm _not_ losing my mind....

> From skimming GPS World
> magazine archives,
> <https://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-systemalgorithms-methodsinnovation-doppler-aided-positioning-11601/>
> my guess is the first usable Doppler based speed displays were in
> 2000, when selective availability finally was turned off. That's
> because the clock jitter intentionally introduced to make selective
> availability work also reduced the accuracy of velocity measurements.
> There was equipment prior to 2000 that used Doppler to display
> velocity because even with selective availability, Doppler was better
> than a distance divided by time method.
> >After reading your links I don't know where I could have gotten
> >that idea.
> As I mentioned in a different reply in this thread, I had the same
> wrong idea and was corrected in sci.geo.satellite-nav newsgroup.
> >I have a modicum of satcom experience (data communication, not
> >GPS). My first "real" job (as an intern, actually) was working
> >for a company that had made a practical burst-mode microwave
> >link analyzer, using a novel method of a swept frequency burst
> >inserted into a TDMA time slot.

It's all coming back to me now! The BMLA (Burst Mode Link analyzer) had three different RF busts in the time slot. The first burst was a fixed frequency at the center of the channel BW. The second burst swept from the center fr to the upper bw limit of the channel, then the third swept from the center fr to the lower bw limit of the channel. The sweep modulation was really fixed frequency shifts that were held for a time and all three bursts were QPSK modulated. I don't remember the number or duration of the fr steps, but the phase of each step was quadrature shifted once.

> Methinks that's roughly how digital cable TV works. Fill the channel
> with spread spectrum (noise) at a level just below the maximum channel
> power handling capability. Then, tweak the channel tilt, shape and
> group delay everything looks nice. The mux can be temporarily set to
> provide a time slot where there's no interfering traffic.

I'm not sure you can tweak group delay if you don't know the phase characteristics at the source, so it would seem to me a spread spectrum signal would have to be a lot more coherent than to qualify as noise. A COFDM "test" signal might work, and you also work in Bit Error Rate Testing (BERT is part of BITE!). I do remember a big problem compensating for gaussian noise during the development of the BMLA, but the details on that are sketchy to me now other than remembering the senior development team threw a party at work when they finally got the software filtering algorithm right. I wasn't involved on the project on that level.

> >Conventional MLAs require that the link be taken off-line for
> >equalization - this method allowed for constant monitoring
> >using any empty timeslot. This equalization compensated for
> >frequency response and group delay but had to account for
> >phase shift.
> Phase delay is a single frequency version of group delay.
> >I seem to remember some discussions regarding the effect of
> >polarity shift as well ...this was back in the late 80's, I
> >might be confusing that with something else.
> Polarity? Do you mean polarization shift as in Faraday rotation?
> That's a function of the RF path and the earth's magnetic field.
> However, if you really want to mangle an RF signal, try putting
> obstructions in the Fresnel Zone's along the path.

Thinking back on it they had to do an analysis of RHCP vs LHCP. I seem to remember it wasn't much of an issue, but there was someone in the organization that thought it might be. This system was actually just the IF, not the RF (the channel bw center fr was 140 MHz, but that was the IF band in the system), so that had a lot to do with it. I seem to remember the head of the analog hardware team getting frustrated and saying something like 'the polarity of the satellite frequency is transparent to the function of this product'....or something like that. Does that make sense to you? I could be misremembering something.

> >They went into production with the product, Intelsat and
> >Eutelsat bought a few hundred of them.
> If the link analyzer was capable of doing offline channel
> equalization, it would have been revolutionary in the late 1980's.

Yes, it was a pretty big deal. We got a boatload of funding from various public and private sources after the senior scientist published the concept in a white paper. I was hired directly from that first round of funding.

> Back then, the big thing was BITE (built in test equipment). The
> obvious benefit was continuous quality monitoring and impairment
> correction without a rack full of equipment and expensive downtime. I
> think the pitch line was something like: "Now that you have it
> working, how would you like to make it reliable?"

Exactly. The ability to keep the link functioning and monitor-tweak in real time means more revenue.

> >Of course my experience is only tangential at best to this
> >discussion - back the regularly scheduled programming.
> What were we discussing? I forgot. Actually, I also forgot which
> newsgroup I was writing.

It doesn't matter, it's just nice to have a conversation here where certain trolls aren't defecating.

[Tom Kunich]

I guess the question would be - did a Garmin 830 get confused?

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2022 07:34:15 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 6:09:50 PM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>For a fixed location, it
>> looks like this:
>> <https://www.visualgps.net/VisualGPSView/images/ssScatter.png>

>Yup, I see a lot of this
>https://www.strava.com/activities/4424213642
>That was actually in my basement (the lower building) but it has me running around between my and my neighbors yards.

Terrible but fairly typical if you're dealing with reflections and low
signal levels. I see 10 position reports and approximately 13 meter
error radius. Switch to "satellite map" for a better view. If your
"connect the dots" map was over a 30 minute "ride" as Strava
indicates, you were only getting a valid position report an average of
once every 3 minutes. Such data is useless for measuring speed, but
does illustrate what is wrong with using distance between position
reports divided by time to calculate speed.

Incidentally, if you're going to make a habit of riding in your
basement, I can show you how to build a GPS signal amplifier. It's an
amplified patch antenna on the roof, RG-188u coax cable to the
basement, power injector, and a 2nd passive patch (transmit) antenna
in the basement. However, it's useless. All your position reports
will show that you're riding in place. You can ride in circles in
your basement and your GPS will show that you're not moving (much).
It's not too difficult to guess how I found that problem.

Trivia: Your Strava link above suggests that I login to Strava to see
more detail. When I do so, there is some more detail, but the "3m"
distance ruler in the lower left of the map disappears.

What GPS device do you use for recording your rides for Strava?

[Roger Merriman]

Certainly in my experience it gets far less confused be that improbable
speeds or where it is exactly, perfect no but certainly quite a step up
form the last one I had.

Roger Merriman

[Roger Merriman]

It should if a bike computer and reasonably advanced be able to connect to
trainer and have ability to turn off the GPS, not stuff I do as well I like
getting out of the house! The exercise is generally a by product of that!

Roger Merriman.

[Tom Kunich]

Garmin have been building these units for many years now. While individual samples of position can vary a little we are NOT sampling every hour like some people seem to think. When you have a thousand samples a second and average the position, they are as I said + or - 13 feet. And without sensors, the tracking of the satellite across the sky is visible as speed, not position change. Plus they have streets, trails and off-road trails mapped so that they can track you on a street or trail and correct for the minor GPS errors. Heavens only knows where Liebermann is pretending he got the idea that GPS is doppler corrected. Perhaps he doesn't know what phase correction is.

We can pretend that Garmin doesn't know what they're doing or we can agree that they have a great deal more technology behind them than Liebermann.

[John B.]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2022 14:08:02 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich

Or that Tommy, with his 87 mph doesn't know what he is talking about?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2022 14:08:02 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ok. I'll waste some more time on Tom.

>Garmin have been building these units for many years now.

Which demonstrates what? Does a GPS become more accurate as the
company becomes older and more experienced?

>While individual samples of position can vary a little

By YOUR number, it can vary +/-13ft. Each position can be anywhere in
your 13ft radius circle because the errors are random and do not
follow a predictable pattern. Calculating speed as distance traveled
over time results inaccurate because of this uncertainty.

My explanation from a previous posting on exactly the same topic which
you didn't bother reading:

Worse, let's say we have a bicycle going at 9 meters/sec (20 mph). The
update rate for GPS is typically once every 2 seconds. So, in 2
seconds, the bicycle moves 18 meters. However, the rms error on my
phone GPS is about +/-3 meters. So, the 18 meter distance needed to
get the exact correct speed could be anywhere between 18 +/-6 meters
or 12 to 24 meters between position reports. (It's 6 meters because
there are two points, each with an error radius of 3 meters). Even
so, the number would easily switch between extremes (because they
random) making on reading 12 meters and the next reading 24 meters.
Such a GPS speedometer would have a display that looked like a Las
Vegas slot machine.

Notice I said "the update rates for GPS is typically once every 2
seconds". That's the rate of NMEA 183 $GPRMC speed reports.
Internally, the sampling (not update) rate can be much higher.

Also, distance over time doesn't work too well unless you happen to be
riding in a straight line. On a curve, it fails badly while Doppler
works just fine. How would the GPS know where to measure? Inside of
the curve, outside, or middle of the road?

>we are NOT sampling every hour like some people seem to think.

We are also not sampling every day like Tom will surely claim. Please
stop inventing numbers for the occasion.

>When you have a thousand samples a second and average the position,
>they are as I said + or - 13 feet.

Where did you get "a thousand samples per second"? For position, the
best you can do is 1Hz or 1 samples per second. For smoother curves,
sometimes 50Hz is used. I think it's the same for speed calculations,
but I have to do some reading to be certain.
<https://www.furuno.com/en/gnss/technical/tec_rate>

>And without sensors, the tracking of the satellite across the sky
>is visible as speed, not position change.

Explain. That makes no sense. The speed is the Doppler shift which
is a measurement of the frequency of the received signals. Doppler
shift will work using only ONE satellite because the angle between the
direction of travel and the line between the GPS and ONE satellite is
known.

>Plus they have streets, trails and off-road trails mapped so that

My marine GPS's do not have road maps. Yet, they measure speed. I
also have some older GPS receivers that have no maps but can also
display speed. There are GPS speedometers that display speed and
don't display position.
<https://www.amazon.com/MEILAN-Computer-Wireless-Speedometer-Waterproof/dp/B07SM5QLW3/>
GPS does not need maps to display speed.

>they can track you on a street or trail and correct for the minor
>GPS errors.

Nice to know that GPS can display position, but we're discussing
speed.

>Heavens only knows where Liebermann is pretending he got the
>idea that GPS is doppler corrected. Perhaps he doesn't know what
>phase correction is.

More gibberish. GPS is not "Doppler corrected" or "phase corrected".
Show me a reference that agrees with your technobabble.

>We can pretend that Garmin doesn't know what they're doing or we
>can agree that they have a great deal more technology behind them
>than Liebermann.

Am I reading this correctly? Garmin is the company that allegedly
sold you three Garmin Edge 850 receivers that were "defective" because
they produce strange indications or you couldn't update the firmware.
Later, you blamed it on your sensor version. The Garmin 850 is also
the product that couldn't produce a stable reading for some number of
miles after you started riding. Garmin is also the company that made
it so difficult to sync your ride data to their servers that you are
still unable to post Strava ride reports. Garmin is also the company
that created a complex user interface that was beyond your ability to
program:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVjqylnWtNo>
Yet, here you are defending Garmin. Did they bribe you? If I
complain endlessly about how bad Garmin is, can I also get a bribe
from them?

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2022 18:24:53 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>Where did you get "a thousand samples per second"? For position, the
>best you can do is 1Hz or 1 samples per second. For smoother curves,
>sometimes 50Hz is used. I think it's the same for speed calculations,
>but I have to do some reading to be certain.
><https://www.furuno.com/en/gnss/technical/tec_rate>

Oops. That should be "sometimes 10Hz is used". 50Hz is the data rate
for the NAV messages containing clock corrections, satellite health,
ephemeris, almanac, UTC time, telemetry, etc.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 15:41:07 -0000 (UTC), Roger Merriman
<ro...@sarlet.com> wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:

>> In other words, some GPS receivers (or firmware) are junk.

>That certainly has been my experience each time I bought a new phone (use
>sat nav app) or less frequently GPS computer seems to be more accurate, I
>certainly remember older units getting very confused as to which road/trail
>I was on thinking I was on a parallel road or so on.

Non-smartphones, dumb phones or feature phones handle GPS very
differently than Smartphones. In a smartphone, the GPS chipset
produces the location, speed, altitude, etc directly to the CPU, which
then displays it on a map or a screen full of numbers. In a dumb
phone, the satellite delays are sent to an internet service provider,
which calculates the location, speed, altitude, etc and sends the
results back to the dumb phone. That saves battery power and
eliminates the cost of a processor, but only works if you want a fixed
location, not a track displayed on a map.

Meanwhile, there were big improvements in GPS receiver design, which
improved sensitivity, accuracy, battery life, cold start, etc. The
big improvement was high-sensitivity GPS in about 2009.
<https://www.furuno.com/en/gnss/technical/tec_high>
Prior to this, most GPS receivers had problems in highly reflective
environments (urban canyons) and in weak signal areas (forests). With
high-sensitivity GPS, it was possible to obtain usable signals in
areas where GPS was previously useless.

There are a bunch of other improvements, such as additional
constellations (GLONASS, Galileo, DBS, etc), better augmentation (WAAS
via Inmarsat), additional signals (L5, L1C) and better post processing
in the phones. I can explain these and others but not right now.

>Clearly some could be software ie locking on to the road/trail etc when
>navigating though the GPS traces seem tighter.

That was a feature, not a bug. The problem was that the FCC demanded
that for E911 emergency service, the accuracy of a GPS location had to
be far better than what was available at the time. Basically, they
wanted to know which land of the street the caller was located. If in
a building, they wanted to know the floor number. Most cellular
service providers failed miserably and had to resort to marginal
tricks. One of these was to deliver a position to the PSAP (public
safety answering point) that was rounded off to the location of the
nearest road. The logic was that since about 80% of the 911 emergency
calls were from vehicles, which presumably were on a road, assuming
that the call was coming from a location on a road was tolerable.
Never mind people calling from wilderness location and areas away from
roads.

After a few screwups, the PSAP's quietly asked the cellular vendors
involved (mostly AT&T) to disarm this feature. The other vendors were
more into improving the accuracy of the GPS system and ran into a
different problem. The road maps were horribly inaccurate. They were
good enough for driving from point A to point B, but not good enough
for GPS location. Besides the ongoing confusion between different
datums, different agencies used different mapping methods, resulting
in different map errors. For example, 911 service used the telephone
company property maps, which were not very well maintained. I was
marginally involved in trying to reconcile map errors in Santa Cruz
county. I could overlay various maps on top of each other and find
wide variations between maps. Of course, none of the map "owners"
wanted to fix their maps and insisted that their maps were perfect.

At this time, most of the major errors have been fixed, but the
millions of minor discrepancies remain. LIDAR mapping and satellite
imaging has done wonders for fixing the maps. However, it will
probably be a few more years before you're able to look through the
viewfinder of a phone, eyeglasses, binoculars or computer and obtain
an accurate map overlay using augmented reality.
<https://www.google.com/search?q=augmented+reality&tbm=isch>

Programs, such as Strava, improve things so that they appear better on
a map. Instead of a series of jagged "connect the dots" lines, these
programs smooth the track so that it looks like a very accurate and
smooth line. I don't believe that they snap the track to the nearest
road because there are so many runners, hikers, swimmers and cyclists
that do not follow the roads. Unless you were using a smartphone GPS
for generating your riding track, you shouldn't have seen it snap to
the nearest road.

Accurate elevation is a different horror story. In general, the sports
GPS computers use the map elevation (via Garmin Connect) or calibrated
barometric pressure. GPS elevation data is horribly inaccurate.
"How Are Elevation Readings Calculated for My Activity in Garmin
Connect?"
<https://support.garmin.com/en-US/?faq=dRY70Lc6yv2oY3eam1ZWxA>
"Barometric Altimeter Accuracy of Outdoor Products"
<https://support.garmin.com/en-US/?faq=WlvNrOungC28xGtwB7hLY5>
However, Garmin will record GPS elevation data if the GPS receiver
provides it.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 14:16:58 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"

<funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 4:54:56 PM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 11:18:14 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 12:50:16 AM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> Also, if you search the document for "Doppler", you'll find that speed
>> >> measurement is heavily tied to Doppler shift measurement.
>> >Doppler radar is precisely how every law enforcement radar speed "monitoring" system works. (now watch Jeff prove me wrong again).
>> Yep. There are other systems (monopulse, phased array, CW, etc) that
>> will provide other useful information besides speed, such as which
>> freeway lane the speeding car is in. Mobile speed guns are mostly IR
>> laser:
>> <https://kustomsignals.com/handheld-lidar/prolaser-4>
>> while fixed installations (automatic speed traps) use RF.
>>
>> Incidentally, I have two really ancient 24GHz Kustom Road Runner radar
>> guns. Plenty fun measuring the speed of passing cyclists and
>> calibrating my car speedometer.
>> <https://photos.app.goo.gl/92mdDZmTuCQUPEpK9>

>Right, I got a radar detector as a present a few years ago that has a Lidar detector as well. I really can't use it in my area becasue there are so many other sources that set off the radar section. When I did have it in the car I don't think the lidar warning ever went off, but I had to keep it turned off most of the time since my commute at the time took me through a long section of strip malls with automatic door openers to the stores. You'd think the FCC would have set aside a different band for that.

Umm... LIDAR is radar using light instead of RF (radio frequencies).
There's nothing in a strip mall that will trigger LIDAR. However, the
10.525GHz and 24GHz supermarket Doppler motion detectors will trigger
radar detectors.

A LIDAR speed gun can produce a reading in 0.3 seconds. See data
sheet at:
<https://kustomsignals.com/handheld-lidar/prolaser-4>
In the time your radar detector needs to detect the LIDAR light, the
speed trap already has your speed and photo, and you don't have any
time to slow down.

As for a dedicated frequency for different services, there's not
enough spectrum available to do that. The FCC no longer makes
decisions based on technical merit or need. The ongoing debacle about
LightSquared/Ligado interfering with GPS is a good example of
frequency allocation based on politics instead of technology.
<https://spacenews.com/report-ligados-wireless-network-will-interfere-with-iridium-and-some-gps-services/>
I can provide about 5 other past examples of politics over-riding
technology if you want.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2022 07:36:17 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 5:43:04 PM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:

>Ah, so I'm _not_ losing my mind....

A plea of insanity should not be so easily discounted.

>It's all coming back to me now! The BMLA (Burst Mode Link analyzer) had three different RF busts in the time slot. The first burst was a fixed frequency at the center of the channel BW. The second burst swept from the center fr to the upper bw limit of the channel, then the third swept from the center fr to the lower bw limit of the channel. The sweep modulation was really fixed frequency shifts that were held for a time and all three bursts were QPSK modulated. I don't remember the number or duration of the fr steps, but the phase of each step was quadrature shifted once.

What that seems to be doing is simulating a spread spectrum signal
using PN (pseudo noise) FM modulation. The advantage is that the FM
modulation sweeps have a flat frequency response within the channel
bandwidth, while DSSS (direct sequence spread spectrum) produced a
lumpy sin(x)/x style amplitude spectrum. One can't do equalization
with such a lumpy spectra.

>> Methinks that's roughly how digital cable TV works. Fill the channel
>> with spread spectrum (noise) at a level just below the maximum channel
>> power handling capability. Then, tweak the channel tilt, shape and
>> group delay everything looks nice. The mux can be temporarily set to
>> provide a time slot where there's no interfering traffic.
>
>I'm not sure you can tweak group delay if you don't know
>the phase characteristics at the source, so it would seem
>to me a spread spectrum signal would have to be a lot more
>coherent than to qualify as noise.

It can be done with an all pass filter. Gain is 1 at all frequencies,
but the phase shift (group delay) is adjustable.

>A COFDM "test" signal might work,

Dunno. I have no experience with COFDM. It's a good way to do
digital television, but I don't know how it's used in telecom.

>and you also work in Bit Error
>Rate Testing (BERT is part of BITE!).

After the modulation schemes started providing more bits per baud, BER
(bit error rate) began to be replaced by PER (packet error rate). That
was about the time I started questioning my sanity.

>I do remember a big problem compensating for gaussian noise
>during the development of the BMLA, but the details on that
>are sketchy to me now other than remembering the senior development
>team threw a party at work when they finally got the software
>filtering algorithm right. I wasn't involved on the project
>on that level.

The problem with equalizing filters, phase shifters, and analog
circuitry in general is that they often introduce additional noise at
every step in the process. My guess(tm) is that was what they were
fighting. Add an adjustment which would add some more noise.

>Thinking back on it they had to do an analysis of RHCP vs
>LHCP. I seem to remember it wasn't much of an issue, but there
>was someone in the organization that thought it might be.
>This system was actually just the IF, not the RF (the channel
>bw center fr was 140 MHz, but that was the IF band in the
>system), so that had a lot to do with it. I seem to remember
>the head of the analog hardware team getting frustrated
>and saying something like 'the polarity of the satellite
>frequency is transparent to the function of this product'
>....or something like that. Does that make sense to you?
>I could be misremembering something.

Yes and I'm familiar with the problem. At the time, the current
fashion in satellite distribution of programming material was C-band
using vertical or horizontal linear polarization. Switching between
satellites across the ecliptic caused some problems maintaining
polarization. If the unwanted polarization was even a few degrees
off, there would be interference.

That was "solved" by switching to circular polarization as in RH
(right hand) and LH (left hand) circular polarization. Instead of
having to have the polarization be perfectly orthogonal to maintain
isolation, RHCP and LHCP were inherently isolated my many more dB than
was possible with linear polarization. In addition, the interleaved
the channel frequencies between RHCP and LHCP, thus giving some
additional isolation.

The head of the analog team was correct. Once the signal were
separated between LH and RH channels at the dish feed, there should be
no further interaction. Reality is quite different. There were
plenty of dumb things a system designer could do that would recombine
the LR and RH signals, resulting in mutual interference. RF
multiplexing the channels at the IF frequency was a good way to create
IMD (intermodulation) products. That required that the system had to
be linear and free of distortion all the way to the video detectors.
IMD distortion testing and mitigation was a big part of the design. Of
course, test equipment had to be better than the equipment it was
suppose to test, so the test equipment designers really had a
difficult time.

>Exactly. The ability to keep the link functioning and monitor-tweak
>in real time means more revenue.

Slight diversion in link reliability:
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/antennas/dish-move-project/index.html>
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/antennas/dish-move-03/index.html>
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/antennas/dish-new-install-project/index.html>
The backup dish:
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/antennas/Dish-wood/index.html>

>It doesn't matter, it's just nice to have a conversation here
>where certain trolls aren't defecating.

Agreed. It's a pleasant change. However, I suspect we're putting the
cyclists to sleep. Hmmm... midnight. Time to put myself to sleep.

[Roger Merriman]

My Garmin and Tom’s you can toggle under navigation has various profiles
one can set up I unsurprisingly have Gravel and MTB profiles and there is a
toggle for lock to road though that is more a navigating function than gps
accuracy as such.

I have to say the elevation is one of those for my uses close enough, in
that it’s broadly in line with known heights of hills do remember vaguely
some ride with some storm fronts where it dropped massively and
unbelievably!

But generally it’s close enough for my purposes.
>
>
Roger Merriman

[Frank Krygowski]

On 9/27/2022 7:05 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
>>
> I have to say the elevation is one of those for my uses close enough, in
> that it’s broadly in line with known heights of hills do remember vaguely
> some ride with some storm fronts where it dropped massively and
> unbelievably!
>
> But generally it’s close enough for my purposes.

I must say, I'm curious about "purposes."

I admit to being generally interested in data. For example, I was rather
obsessive about keeping cars' gas mileage data. But I seldom did
anything with the data, other than confirming (in the old, old days)
that a car needed a tuneup.

I was once given a nice sports watch with an altimeter. I glanced at it
from time to time, especially when traveling over mountains. But I
certainly never made any use of the numbers.

What do you do with your altitude data?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Politics over technology? That's like politics over science!

Surely, rational people would never pay more attention to a politician
than to thousands of scientists or engineers. Would they?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Catrike Rider]

Especially when the scientists lie..

Fauci admitted as much in a recent interview with the New York Times.
He confessed that he knowingly downplayed the percentage of people who
would need to be vaccinated in order for the United States to reach
herd immunity, and then he raised that number only because of a “gut
feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really
thinks,” the New York Times reported.

This is not the first time Fauci has been caught in his own web. He
was one of the most prominent health experts to discourage people from
wearing face coverings toward the beginning of the outbreak, even
though the available data confirmed masks would help prevent COVID-19
carriers from spreading the virus. A few months later, after many
states began mandating masks in public, Fauci acknowledged that he
knowingly misled the public because the experts “were concerned that
it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95
masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/faucis-noble-lies-catch-up-to-him

[Roger Merriman]

It’s more if the Garmin will display the elevation profile, for new to me
places/hills which is handy for pacing efforts, as generally I’m following
a route, be that one I’ve plotted or once in a blue mood one for a event
and so on.

Nothing trumps local knowledge clearly.

Or simply again on places I don’t know knowing the height means I can make
educational guess as to how far up/along a ridge I am and so on, if I can’t
be bothered to switch screens.

It’s mildly useful rather than needed essentially.

Roger Merriman

[AMuzi]

The two interest areas, science and social policy, are
irretrievably intertwined:

https://gbdeclaration.org/

https://www.lomborg.com/

http://johnlott.org/

oh, and recent national news:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/research-org-that-worked-with-wuhan-lab-receives-massive-government-grant/ar-AA11kAEB

https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/ex-cdc-director-reveals-names-behind-real-covid-conspiracy/

When governments fund and regulate research, scientists
become inherently captive to ideology. We might bemoan this
situation, but here we are.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 11:20:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Agreed. More realistically, it's politics vs common sense. Many of
the brilliant decisions by the FCC required creative interpretation of
the data, or in a few cases, creative ways to obtain the data. The
basic rule of thumb is to NOT have two radically different services or
modulation types share the same frequency space, or be close enough in
frequency to interfere. For example, interleaving channels was
suppose to reduce interference but did the opposite, eventually
resulting in "spectrum refarming". Every time the FCC has ignored
that rule of thumb, things didn't work. For Ligado, it's all about
the money that Philip Falcone and friends paid to the government for
winning a spectrum auction. I won't go into the convoluted trades,
bailouts and decision, but the last offer to buy the spectrum from the
then bankrupt LightSquared was $3.3 billion in 2013:
<https://www.reuters.com/article/centerbridge-lightsquared-idUSL3N0JR01220131212>

>Surely, rational people would never pay more attention to a politician
>than to thousands of scientists or engineers. Would they?

There is some question if people remain rational when confronted with
billion dollar decisions. I haven't had the experience, but I suspect
rational thinking and sanity evaporate at about the million dollar
mark. That's about the average selling price for a house in my area:
<https://www.zillow.com/home-values/3025/santa-cruz-county-ca/>

[Tom Kunich]

Don't believe one word about Fauci and ANY disease. He is a bubbling incompetent fool that never spent one day in private medical practice. Every single thing that I have ever seen him do was entirely wrong and usually 180 degrees from what he should have done. I helped with the AIDS crisis from designing and programming the instruments that were used to finally detect HIV as the cause of AIDS to doing personal interviews of homosexuals in hospitals dying from AIDS. From the very start one thing was perfectly clear - that it was a blood born pathogen that was causing AIDS. That stupid asshole told the entire world that it was an airborne disease. What this resulted in was homosexuals were fired from their jobs, thrown out of their housing and even their own parents were afraid to be around them. The incidence of suicide of homosexuals skyrocketed. Since they were unemployed, they were selling their own blood to blood banks. Until my instrument there was no way of identifying the cause of AIDS so blood banks would accept their blood and pay them a little money which they were using to subsist on.

The Washington Post is moronic and anything they say about Fauci is bulllshit. The SARS-Cov-2 virus that causes covid-19 is 200 times smaller than the breathing pores in an N95 operating room mask. So the BEST mask available has ZERO effect on the spread of covid-19. Paper and cloth masks are useless and always have been since the first studies around 1918. N95 masks won't stop BACTERIAL infections. Even without the breathing pores, viruses and bacteria escape from the poor seal around the nose.

What give ANYONE the idea that a vaccine that doesn't stop you from getting the illness, doesn't lessen it's symptoms and doesn't stop you from spreading it can EVER generate herd immunity in any population of any size?

40% or more of the people that contract covid-19 are symptomless. So it these people have received a vaccination and contract the illness, they wouldn't know. They would happily walk around with a vaccination card in their pocket flying on airplanes and working in close proximity to others spreading it to all around them.

The one outstanding feature of covid-19 is that it has probably spread throughout the entire population of cities and large towns. So ANYONE that dies from natural causes in these areas would ALWAYS test positive for covid-19 immune signs. Fauci and his minions and the Slime Stream Media just take all of these people who have died from natural causes and because they test positive for immune response say that they died from covid-19. But here is the actual truth:

Go to: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm (Excess Deaths Associated with Covid-19 - THE CDC site)

Upon getting to this site scroll down the page until you reach "Options" "Select a Dashboard" then go to the far right and mark the place "Total number above average by cause" Then hit the "Update Dashboard" button.

SARS-Cov-2 is "Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome" corona virus type 2 - this is what causes covid-19

After you have updated the Dashboard below that you will see some charts.

Th excess deaths shown under Respiratory Diseases are "influenza and pneumonia", "Chronic lower respiratory disease" (these are mostly from smoking or working in coal mines and the like) and the covid-19 actual number of deaths - "Other Diseases of the Respiratory System". As you can see - Covid-19 actually killed only 8,865 people. This is the same as a BAD influenza year. You have been suckered into losing everything by Fauci and the Democrats who have to always be saving you from a major emergency.

Far more importantly go back up and mark "Weekly Number of Deaths by Cause Group" and update the dashboard again. The charts below for Respiratory diseases shows that there was a SLIGHT upsurge in excess deaths in late March and early April of 2020. Since that time deaths from respiratory diseases of all types have been WELL BELOW NORMAL.

The reduction of excess deaths due to Influenza and Pneumonia are simply because people were locked down and just weren't exposed to those pathogens. deaths from lower respiratory system deaths were back to normal because they had been irritated by covid-19. These excess deaths were NOT caused by covid-19 but by their normal causes. If you have severe Myocarditis and you are vaccinated which irritates your heart lining is the death from the vaccine, the immune system detection of covid-19 or the Myocarditis? - It is from the original heart disease.

This is long and complicated and tiresome, but the bottom line is that covid-19 was no worse than a bad influenza year. And this country was purposely destroyed to give the Democrats power and allow George Soros to get that much closer to the destruction of the US dollar which is how he has made his billions - by the destruction of the monetary standards of countries - the Euro, The English Lb and the Turkish and Greek economies.

I have spent 50 years in electronics and about 40 of them developing medical instruments or laboratory instruments that were used to detect the basis of illnesses and diseases.. This is why the stupid six hate me with such a passion - because I actually know what I'm talking about and they can't pretend in front of me.

[Catrike Rider]

Fauci is a dishonest scientist and a dishonest politician all in one.

[John B.]

And then we have
https://financialpost.com/opinion/lawrence-solomon-ban-the-bike-how-cities-made-a-huge-mistake-in-promoting-cycling
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/07/should-we-ban-bicycles-in-major-urban-areas.html
https://metro.co.uk/2015/11/05/cyclists-are-a-menace-and-should-be-banned-from-the-roads-5482050/

You can "prove" anything these days on the Internet

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

Andrew, you're an expert at mining the lowest tail of a normal curve.

To paraphrase one of your frequent statements: It's a big world. There's
at least one of every kind of opinion.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

>>>> enough spectrum available to do that.Ā The FCC no longer
>>>> makes
>>>> decisions based on technical merit or need.Ā The ongoing

>>>> debacle about
>>>> LightSquared/Ligado interfering with GPS is a good
>>>> example of
>>>> frequency allocation based on politics instead of
>>>> technology.
>>>> <https://spacenews.com/report-ligados-wireless-network-will-interfere-with-iridium-and-some-gps-services/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can provide about 5 other past examples of politics
>>>> over-riding
>>>> technology if you want.
>>>
>>> Politics over technology? That's like politics over science!
>>>
>>> Surely, rational people would never pay more attention to a
>>> politician than to thousands of scientists or engineers.
>>> Would they?
>>>
>>
>> The two interest areas, science and social policy, are
>> irretrievably intertwined:
>>
>> https://gbdeclaration.org/
>>
>> https://www.lomborg.com/
>>
>> http://johnlott.org/
>
> Andrew, you're an expert at mining the lowest tail of a
> normal curve.
>
> To paraphrase one of your frequent statements: It's a big
> world. There's at least one of every kind of opinion.
>

I agree and that's my point exactly.

We cannot separate science from policy now, as both areas
are filled with dissent, counterpoints and stubborn facts.

To administratively decree any particular 'scientific'
analysis as 'truth' and promote it over reasonably credible
dissent serves no one well in the end. To stymie, stifle,
ban and persecute dissent is worse and ought to offend even
those who have no particular opinion on the issue at hand.

[Frank Krygowski]

Your "now" sounds like you think there was a time when science was unanimous.
But there never was such a time. While evidence pointed to the existence
of bacteria and viruses, there were still "scientists" who believed in things like
curses, miasma, or "bad air" as causes of disease.

> To administratively decree any particular 'scientific'
> analysis as 'truth' and promote it over reasonably credible
> dissent serves no one well in the end.

What's "reasonably credible" depends VERY heavily on who is doing the reasoning.
There are people who believe in the curative power of flowers. (See "Bach Flower
Remedies.") Others believe in the healing power of crystals. And of course, we now
"know" that CBD oil cures damn near everything. Should insurance companies
and governments really throw money at those beliefs? Personally, I don't think so.

Rational policy decisions almost always depend on the consensus of _not_ just
any Tom, Dick and Harry (or whoever). Instead, it makes sense to pay attention
to consensus among people who have recognized credentials and expertise.

> To stymie, stifle,
> ban and persecute dissent is worse and ought to offend even
> those who have no particular opinion on the issue at hand.

Science, and consequently science based policy decisions, _must_ ignore
outlier opinions. It's obviously impossible to base policy on every weird opinion that
gets generated by every weird mind.

I haven't heard about Bach Flower Remedies for Covid, but I bet they've been proposed.
You may disagree, but I don't think we should promote or fund those proposals.

- Frank Krygowski

[Catrike Rider]

Well said..

[Catrike Rider]

To assume that some scientist or politician or some old, has been,
fruitcake from Ohio knows what's best for me is just stupid, but to
always obey the government's "orders" based on its assumptions of
what's best for me would be asinine.

When I saw Fauci wearing two masks, I knew he was not to be believed
nor trusted, and of course, Biden divested himself of any credibility
long before he was nominated.

Whenever I saw someone wearing a mask when out on a bicycle, or all
alone in a car, I knew they must be a follow the leader liberal.

[AMuzi]

Yesterday's 22 second video "because Science! "

https://710wor.iheart.com/featured/mark-simone/content/2022-09-27-watch-joe-biden-give-the-weirdest-hurricane-advice-ever/

A shot which doesn't prevent infection nor reduce contagion
is now called a 'vaccine'. I rest my case.

[Tom Kunich]

Andrew - while you may THINK that there is disagreement about science there really isn't. We do have entirely incorrect theories but they are all of a very small minority and are used by politicians to their own ends. Science as a whole is correct. Why do you think that they don't interview real climate experts on the "nightly news"? Because climate change is from ONE source - Dr. Michael Mann and a very few of his cohorts to whom the government has been pouring huge grants to continue the fear in the public.

As I have shown you - EVEN in the CDC outside of the control of Fauci, they know what is going on.

Science is the study of what is and not what politicians would want it to be. For all that I didn't like Jimmy Carter, he WAS a realist and not a politician. I sat there and listened to my company managers talk to him and watched his responses. He was real. Remember Obama saying that he would have "every American boot on American soil withing 16 weeks of being elected"? He had absolutely no intentions of ever doing that and he didn't. He collected his paycheck from the war machine and smiled to the American public for putting him in a position to be bribed so handsomely.

This isn't about a large difference of opinions. It is just like Italy - The politicians believe that they can do literally ANYTHING because the same people are controlling both parties. Well the people rose up there and they are about to rise up here unless the Democrats have so perfected their election fraud that they can simply take over here.

Frank is nothing more than a pure and simple minded communist. Of course he denies it while espousing every single communist value.

[Tom Kunich]

But all of the studies are showing that it DOES cause a high percentage of Myocarditis and Pericarditis and it increases the possibility of Alzheimer dementia by 60%. So all of you good little Fauci lovers should rush right down and get a shot of poison. They have single handedly killed more people than the Vietnam war when the final tally has come in.

[Frank Krygowski]

So consider a shot that greatly reduces the odds of infection, and
greatly reduces the seriousness of symptoms if infection occurs. What
should that be called?

The medical community breathlessly awaits your opinion! They want to
apply your chosen term to the shingles vaccine, the influenza vaccine,
the chicken pox vaccine and many others.

.. or maybe they don't. As I said, rational policies _must_ ignore
outlier opinions.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 9/28/2022 9:55 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> But all of the studies are showing that [the Covid vaccine] DOES cause a high percentage of Myocarditis and Pericarditis and it increases the possibility of Alzheimer dementia by 60%.

Bullshit.

If you have credible citations, post them.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 9/28/2022 9:48 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> ... climate change is from ONE source - Dr. Michael Mann and a very few of his cohorts to whom the government has been pouring huge grants to continue the fear in the public.

Absolute bullshit - or beyond bullshit, into insanity.

Climate scientists around the world are nearly unanimous about
human-caused climate change. Evidence is apparent in many separate and
independent scientific fields. There's no way "the government" can have
funded a worldwide conspiracy to pay off all the scientists and alter
all the data.

Tom is deep into paranoid delusion.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Kunich]

On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 5:59:32 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:

Since no doubt the stupid six are going to deny everything EVEN the CDC admits that the Vaccines are killing people https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/myocarditis.html?s_cid=11537:%2Bmyocarditis%20%2Bcovid%20%2Bvaccine:sem.b:p:RG:GM:gen:PTN:FY21

I especially like the part that if you die as a result of being vaccinated you should report it to VAERS.

[Frank Krygowski]

For example:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/study-heatwave-led-unprecedented-melt-090910362.html

[AMuzi]

They're well reported with increasing frequency. This
specialist MD was interviewed in my paper yesterday:

https://gcsmaui.org/news/update-on-myocarditis-by-pediatric-cardiologist-kirk-milhoan-md-phd-faap-facc/

https://www.dailywire.com/news/admirals-demand-answers-over-coast-guard-cadets-allegedly-expelled-for-vaccine-exemption-requests

[AMuzi]

Or else... what?

[Tom Kunich]

Now isn't that exactly the question. The stupid six pretend that the vaccines actually work when by now the entire world knows that they do nothing. Denmark, Sweden and Finland had absolutely NO difference in the per capita incidence of covid-19 despite Denmark making it a privately paid for vaccination meaning that no one got it.

The vaccines were no such thing, they didn't prevent the disease, they didn't reduce the symptoms and they didn't prevent transmission of the disease. They did cause countless deaths for reasons like heart swelling to VAIDS. I can't believe that VAIDS would ever become a major problem but time will tell. Though if there is one group that could really do to be silenced by their own false beliefs it is the stupid six.

To my mind, the vaccination of 6 year old's should be considered a criminal act and the vaccine manufacturers held to account.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 9/28/2022 2:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/28/2022 10:55 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 9/28/2022 9:55 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>
>>> But all of the studies are showing that [the Covid
>>> vaccine] DOES cause a high percentage of Myocarditis and
>>> Pericarditis and it increases the possibility of Alzheimer
>>> dementia by 60%.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>> If you have credible citations, post them.
>>
>
> They're well reported with increasing frequency. This specialist MD was
> interviewed in my paper yesterday:
>
> https://gcsmaui.org/news/update-on-myocarditis-by-pediatric-cardiologist-kirk-milhoan-md-phd-faap-facc/

I'll skip listening to a 45 minute video, if you don't mind. The
synopsis doesn't seem to contain much data on the frequency of
myocarditis among those vaccinated, and it didn't seem to mention
Alzheimer's at all.

Data elsewhere claims about 2000 myocarditis cases out of 350 million
vaccination doses.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346 And those few
cases typically resolved quickly after no meds beyond pain killers. How
is that an emergency?

> https://www.dailywire.com/news/admirals-demand-answers-over-coast-guard-cadets-allegedly-expelled-for-vaccine-exemption-requests

That seems to be entirely about religious (or quasi-religious) refusals
of the vaccine. It always amazes me that there are military people who
are religiously opposed to _this_ vaccine, when they normally get so
many other vaccines.

I thought for a while that it might be because they worship Trump as
their god. But that makes no sense. He's the guy that bragged about how
fast he got the vaccine produced.

(Oh, and he actually did call it a "vaccine"!)

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-renews-praise-covid-vaccines-one-greatest-achievements-mankind-n1286551

In general, "Here's something vaguely related" doesn't really work as
corroboration.


--
- Frank Krygowski