Does gps receiver need synchronization with atomic clock

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the necessity of synchronization between GPS receivers and atomic clocks, particularly focusing on how GPS receivers determine their position using signals from satellites. Participants explore the implications of satellite signal transmission, the role of time differences, and the information provided by satellites.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that synchronization with atomic clocks allows GPS receivers to compute the time difference between their current time and the time tag of the satellite signal, which is essential for determining the distance to the satellite.
  • Others contend that while the time difference gives the distance to the satellite, it is also necessary for the receiver to know the satellite's position to compute its own position accurately.
  • One participant notes that satellites send their orbital parameters, which are valid for a limited time, and the receiver must calculate the satellite's position at the time of signal transmission based on this information.
  • Another viewpoint suggests that if satellites transmitted their exact positions at the time of signal transmission, receivers could potentially determine their location without needing to compute distances, as different receivers would receive unique position data based on their distances from the satellites.
  • A participant mentions that GPS receivers can function without an atomic clock by using a stable internal quartz clock, which is regularly compared to the GPS time standard, allowing for the measurement of time differences between signals from multiple satellites.
  • It is also mentioned that the receiver can obtain clock corrections by comparing its computed position with signals from three satellites and analyzing the error indicated by a fourth satellite.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about whether GPS can locate its position without synchronization with an atomic clock, suggesting that only the transmission time and satellite position are needed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion contains multiple competing views regarding the necessity of synchronization with atomic clocks for GPS receivers. Participants express differing opinions on whether satellite position information alone could suffice for determining receiver location without distance calculations.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations in the discussion include assumptions about the validity of satellite orbital parameters over time and the implications of signal transmission timing on receiver location determination. The discussion does not resolve these complexities.

rajeshmarndi
Messages
319
Reaction score
0
with synchronization what the gps receiver does is compute time difference between his current time (synchronized with atomic clock onborad each satellite) and the time tag of a satellite when the signal was sent. This difference gives the travel time of an signal from the satellite and hence the distance and position of the satellite in its orbit.

so, Why do we need the receiver to compute the positions of the satellite, if satellite itself sends their position with the signal everytime where they were?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This difference gives the travel time of an signal from the satellite and hence the distance and position of the satellite in its orbit.
No!
This difference gives the distance to satellite. - true.
But it is needed to compute receiver's position, having known satellite position.
 
rajeshmarndi said:
Why do we need the receiver to compute the positions of the satellite, if satellite itself sends their position with the signal everytime where they were?

The satellite only sends its orbital parameters, which will keep valid for up to 4 hours. The receiver has to calculate the position of the satellite at the time the message was sent from this.
 
willem2 said:
The satellite only sends its orbital parameters

each satellites in their signal send their time at which they were transmitted. And this time information of the satellite when received by different receiver will be different, which should give the receiver location.

Also is it not possible for the satellite to send its positions in its orbits, each time it transmit. Then similarly different receiver at different location at a given time, will receive different position of the satellite bcoz of their distances from the satellite which will be unique and should give the location of the receiver.
In this way, it seems the distances from the satellite is not required, only the information of their positions in their orbit, could give the receiver location.
 
The receiver can get away without having an atomic clock because its internal quartz clock is, effectively, being regularly compared with the time standard of the GPS system. It only needs to be stable enough not to drift too much between updates. It can measure, relatively easily the differences in arrival times of the different signals - which gives it the relative distances from the satellites (after some clever jiggery pokery) and, hence, the receiver position.

When you bear in mind the naff little receiving antenna and the very low power of the GPS transmitters, it really is a clever bit of engineering. You have to forgive the fact that you can't just expect to switch on the receiver and use it. It can take many seconds when you are starting from a brand new position. Even longer than waiting for the old valve telly to warm up!
 
The receiver gets a clock correction by comparing its computed position with three satellites to the error indicated when adding a fourth. The wiki on gps has a section on this.
 
my question was, it is still possible for the gps to locate its postion without any need to sychronize with the atomic clock.

just the information of the time of transmission and also along with it the position of the satellite at the instant of transmitting is only required at the receiver end. As i have mentioned above.

any help where am i wrong.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
5K
  • · Replies 103 ·
4
Replies
103
Views
7K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
6K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
8K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K