Larry Scott, post: 374022, member: 8766 wrote: Does anyone use 3 receivers with static observations anymore? And run networks of point-to-point baselines? And make a network of polygons of dX dY dZ vectors?
Does anyone use post processed phase differential?
Absolutely, when I need to do networks, I use more than 2 receivers. When I owned my own firm, I personally owned 4 receivers, and the PLS that I teamed up with on a regular basis also owned 4 receivers. We had a ton of redundancy in our networks. Of those 8 receivers, 5 were L1/L2, and 3 were L1 only.
Now with my current position, I have the availability of 6 L1/L2 units, if I include my own. I have to put a proposal in over the weekend for creating a small network of points for another firm for a large topo. I will be using a Network for that project. I like the VRS systems and all, but sometimes good old fashioned static cannot be beat, in my humble opinion.
Jose MPS, post: 373963, member: 11746 wrote: friend,
you have any photographs of how to change the internal batteries Trimble 4000?
and how to update firmware?
Google it. If I remember correctly there are instructions on the UNAVCO website. I went through this process about two years ago with a 4000SSI. It was trivially easy to do, but because of the copper foil and all the standoff screws and nuts that had to be removed and then put back It was also a bit annoying. Unsoldering, removing, and installing and soldering in soldertab batteries is also easy to do, but not particularly fun. Oh and as I recall the firmware loader had to be run in a virtual machine under Windows XP because it would not run under Windows 7. Overall, well worth the time and annoyance.
Larry Scott, post: 374022, member: 8766 wrote: Does anyone use 3 receivers with static observations anymore? And run networks of point-to-point baselines? And make a network of polygons of dX dY dZ vectors?
Does anyone use post processed phase differential?
Truthfully, no.
It's not a matter of quality though. Post processing has always provided me with excellent results, but I personally have not worked any projects in recent years that would have been improved by using static over RTK. The time required to perform a network survey using static observations just doesn't justify the arguably better results I would get compared to RTK. Having said that, I understand that there are those working projects that RTK would not be feasible due to communication limitations. And of course the adage, smoke 'em if you got 'em would seem to apply. The static system in your office or truck is better than the RTK system at your dealer's shop.
I might even sell you a PAIR of Legacy E's with radios, AND memory activated, on them, (4 megs, and 8 megs) All you would need would be a TDS controller, and you would be RTK.
With memory on the rover, so you can do a Post Processed Observation. And, I paid 20 k for this!
Hm.. 1k and you can have them. Guaranteed not DOA.,
All you'd need would be tripod, and a deep cycle marine battery. Rover pole, and TDS or Carlson controller. You can buy a TDS controller for a few hundred off ebay. I'm pretty sure I'd do this.
N
Larry Scott said:
Does anyone use 3 receivers with static observations anymore? And run networks of point-to-point baselines? And make a network of polygons of dX dY dZ vectors?
Does anyone use post processed phase differential?
Yes to both, 6 Ashtech's, 3 - Z-Max and 3 - Z-Extremes using GNSS Solutions, Invariably yield fine results.
