Bob Blaylock
-
Posts
214 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Bob Blaylock
-
-
I have several timepieces that work by receiving and setting themselves by the WWVB broadcast from the NIST. Whenever I've compared these with the time displayed by my eTrex, there's always a noticable difference (on the order of 1/4 to 1/2 of a second). There's never a perceptable difference between any of the WWVB-based timepieces, if I compare them just after they've successfully used the WWVB signal.
I've occcasionally wondered which is more accurate. As has been pointed out, the GPS ought to contain an extremely accurate account of the time, in order to be able to do its thing; perhaps the display of the time is not entirely in synch with the internal representation of it.
As for the WWVB timepieces, I am approximately 900 miles from the WWVB transmitter. Using 2,000 miles as a basis for my calculation (to make a generous allowance for the signal bouncing off the upper atmosphere rather than reaching me straight-line), I estimate that the delay between the signal being transmitted and my receiving it should be on the order of 1/100 of a second — much too small to produce a perceptable discrepancy.
I guess listerine's answer is quite plausible:
The time in the internal clock in the GPSr is very acurate but the time displayed isnt as acurate as the interal clock. The unit doesn't devote alot of power to displaying time.Though I know that the GPS must internally have the most accurate time represntation, the WWVB-based timepieces, being designed and optimized for use as timepieces, probably display the most accurate time.
I wonder if a more accurate display of time would be a feature found in higher-end GPS units. Then perhaps it's like one of my old rants about clocks in computers. You can pay thousands of dollars for a computer, and you can be sure that the clock therein will drift off by several seconds in a day, while you can spend $20 (or less) for a digital watch at Wal*Mart, and you can be quite confident that this <$20 watch will keep time to within a second per week.
-
We still plan to have it ready by the end of May.
Of what year?
-
Uh, given that neither of the Etrex owner's manual listed on the garmin site seems to match my unit, I'd be a tad leery that likewise the d/l might not be the right one for my unit.
There are actually two different units that both happen to be yellow, and called simply “eTrex”. There is the original model, which has been on the market for several years now, and that's what you have. Yours has firmware version 2.07, and the latest firmware for it is 2.14.
There's a newer version of the yellow eTrex that Garmin has quietly slipped into the market, with some improved hardware features, and firmware revisions starting at 3.0. This is really an entirely different model, that ought to have been given a different name. This isn't what you have.
All you need to update the firmware on your eTrex is a cable, and a PC running a fairly current version of Windows. You can download the latest firmware at the link that someone else gave you (http://www.garmin.com/support/agree.jsp?id=87).
I bet the cable is the sticking point. You've probably noticed that Garmin charges something like $40 (last time I looked) for a cable. Got eBay? Go to eBay and do a search on “garmin etrex data cable”, and you'll find plenty selling for much better prices. That's how I got mine. I think I paid less than $15 for a combination data/power cable.
-
Most new cars have black boxes that are constantly recording your speed, and can be theoretically used as evidence against you (right now in cases of accidents). I wouldn't be suprised if they started making them wireless and allowing you automagically 'confess' your speeding ticket to a cop with a wireless receiver.
In the United States, at least, that would be rather blatantly unconstitutional. In fact, it could very well be construed as a direct violation of three different Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
Very definitely, it would violate the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination.
Unless the law-enforcement officer had a warrant specifically identifying you by name, and your vehicle, it would be a violation of the Fourth Amendment for him to obtain access to data generated and stored by something owned by you without your consent.
And although this is a bit tricky, it would seem to violate the spirit and intent, albeit not the literal letter, of the Third Amendment.
-
This is a great thread! I have been enjoying reading other peoples opinions as well! Welcome to AMERICA - where we can have the freedom of expression! (and opinions).
…unless what you want to express is something to do with Christianity or with widely-held Christian or other religious-based moral values. Then you will be accused of being hateful, and a narrow-minded bigot, and there will be shrill calls for you to be silenced — all from persons who; in making such calls — are proving themselves to be greater bigots than they are accusing you of being.
We live in very strange times. We live in a time where the First Amendment — whose primary purpose was to protect freedom of expression, and freedom of religion — is routinely corrupted into an excuse to suppress the very rights it was meant to protect. The doublethink behind this bizarre corruption is quite clearly visible in this very thread.
At the risk of identifying myself as a narrow-minded, hateful, despicable bigot, I will cite Matthew 7:1–5:
- JUDGE not, that ye be not judged.
- For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
- And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
- Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
- Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
- JUDGE not, that ye be not judged.
-
What you are experiencing is perfectly normal. That's just the limitations of the basic GPS protocol.
GPS is nominally specified to be accurate to 15 meters. That's roughly 45 feet. Often, you'll get better accuracy than that; sometimes, you'll get worse. As satellite positions change, and as you get different signals from different sattelites, the calculated position will often shift, as has been described.
Many of the newer GPS units support WAAS, which enables greater accuracy. I don't have a WAAS-enabled GPS, so I don't have any firsthand experience to report, but I am given to understand that WAAS can sometimes be rather iffy in some places, but when it does work, your accuracy is nominally around 3 meters instead of 15.
I'm also aware of a feature called Differential GPS (or DGPS), which a yellow eTrex can apparently be equipped to support (at what cost, I do not know, nor do I know how widely available the DGPS sigansl are (I believe DGPS signals come from ground-based stations)) that, when available and used, also greatly improved GPS accuracy.
Other than using WAAS or DGPS or perhaps some other GPS-enhancing system that works on similar principles, no GPS is going to give very much better accuracy than any other. Among all GPS receivers that do not use any such technology, your basic yellow eTrex can be expected to be as accurate as any other.
-
You've embedded non-ASCII characters in that page, and failed to specify the character encoding. As a result, here's how the section on the degree symbol appears under iCab:
-
It's Fry's and they bought outpost.com. They are in the SF Bay area (where they started) Southern Cal and Ithink hey have a fw in Arizona and Texas.
There's one here in Sacramento.
-
Nobody's linked to this thread yet?
-
When the Travel Bug Gestapo makes the rules, only they will enjoy the sport.
Godwin's Law invoked.
-
They become even more angry when an avowed goal, according to Logan, is to put a geocache in every S.C. cemetery.
HUH?!?!
Where did this come from?
X
Can anyone say "rules of evidence" ? Why stop there ? Isn't the avowed goal of geocachers in fact just to destroy the American way of life ?
I thought our avowed goal was to destroy the Earth.
-
I was just thinking of creating a very small black hole (about the size of a golf ball) and making it into a travel bug.
-
My problem with Garmin is that the old model is being sold at the same stores in the same packaging and for the same price as the new model. In fact, the packaging of the guy who just got the v3.1 eTrex was copyright 2001 which is older than MY 2.14 eTrex's. There is NO way to tell if you are buying the new version with WAAS support, a 31 function Trip Computer, and an additional display screen OR the regular old version without these additional features.
If I correctly understand, Garmin's basically taken the position of not acknowledging yet that the new version even exists. They don't describe it on their web site, and they don't advertise it in any way. They are just quietly shipping it out in the same packaging as the original yellow eTrex. Consumers aren't supposed to expect, when they buy a yellow eTrex, that it is anything other than the original yellow eTrex. If you buy a yellow eTrex, and it turns out ot be the old one, then you got exacly what it was being advertised and sold as, and you got exactly what you were paying for. If you got the new version, then you got a nice bonus above and beyond what you were entitled to expect.
I guess this is a glass (half empty)/(half full)/(twice as big as it needs to be) kind of thing.
This isn't to say that I entirely agree with how Garmin is handling this transaction. As long as they are not actually selling old eTrexes by representing them as the new version when they are not, they aren't committing any breach of law or ethics; but I don't think this is the best way to do it.
I think they should have simply announced that the yellow eTrex was being discontinued, and announced a new model, with a new name to replace it; and then sold this new model, in its own new package.
In the mean time, I guess it's simply prudent for consumers to realize that if they buy a yellow eTrex, they might wind up with the original version, which is all that Garmin is representing it to be; and therefore all that they are entitled to expect. They might get lucky and get the new and improved version, but it's foolish to buy on the expectation that that's what they're getting.
-
To me this is basically the same thing as going to a car dealer who is selling a 2004 model as a new 2005 because the body-style didn't change.
Seems to me like the opposite. Garmin has very quietly been sneaking the new and improved Yellow eTrex into the market, to be bought by people who think they're buying the old version. It's just that word has got out, so now people like you are buying the Yellow eTrex, hoping to get the new version, and being disappointed when it turns out to be the old version.
It's rather more like a car dealer selling what the buyer thinks is the 2004 model, but sometimes it turns out to be a 2005.
-
Not really relevant, but the term, in this context, made me think of this cache.
-
And please don't purport to tell me how I ought to have reacted to the situation that happened to me. You weren't there. If running .2 miles through thick underbrush and thorns, and hiding on the ground in a thicket, isn't enough to tell a park pervert that I'm not interested, I'm not sure what is. When he reached into the thicket and placed his hand on my left arm, my right arm reacted rather instinctively. It was no longer a time for chit chat.
Good thing he wasn't an undercover cop who thought you were enticing him into a more private spot for some illegal behavior - you'd now be doing 5-10 for not knowing how to "use your words".
If assaulting someone for touching your arm doesn't show irrational fear, I don't know what does. Next time, try telling him you're not interested - you can still punch him out if he doesn't listen.
Actually, unwanted touching, even if not blatantly violent, constitutes assault. If Leprechauns made it reasonably clear to the pervert that he was not interested, and the pervert insisted on touching him, then Leprechauns was entirely within his rights, at that point, to resort to more forceful means to make his point.
-
I sometimes treat the GPS as a cell phone.
If you use a GPS unit like a cell phone should you be concerned about the radiation flooding your brain (not to mention the satellite signals)?
A GPSr is a receiver, not a transmitter. There is no clear scientific evidence that transmitting devices (such as cell phones and walkie talkies) pose any significant hazard to the user; but even if there was, it wouldn't apply to receiver-only devices.
-
A HazMat suit! LOL! That would be hillarious! I don't know how invisible you'ld be, but it'd be funny!
Cool idea for a new cache:
2319
by C.D.A.
Difficulty:
Terrain: 
Cache contents: Human Child Parephenalia obtained from various closets.
Haz-Mat Suit Only
A hazmat suit would be “special equipment”, so the cache would have to be rated at 5 stars.
-
You could put this one in. It's not me, but you could put it in.
That's me, actually. See, here's the full version, without the head being cut off:
-
I like Cheetos, I like them a lot.
Perhaps, but you should know that Cheetos never win.
-
Here are a couple of pictures of me, taken several years ago:
-
Jeremy put MacGPSBabel 1.2.5 about an hour ago. It's not made it to all the mirrors yet, but it's on the way. (Followups on that to the gpsbabel-misc mailing list and not here, please.)
No fix, I see, for the serial port issue I reported earlier in this thread.
-
bumping
Ow!
That hurts! Stop it!
-
It seems to me that someone really ought to put a link here in this thread to this other thread.
AT Hiker Jeanette Seeking Geocacher Paul
in General geocaching topics
Posted
Jeanette, please do keep us updated in this thread. I'm sure I'm not just speaking for myself in saying that we'd like to hear how this story plays out. Hopefully, you'll find the correct Paul, fall in love, get married, and live happily ever after; but however the story plays out — for good or for ill — we'd like to hear it.