I've never had a bad fix with an R10.
?ÿ
Is that because you haven't used one?
Yes!
Our typical procedure for ground control is to observe 3 minutes (observed control), then reset the SV tracking and do another OC occupation. If it does not agree by better than 3 cm H and V, we re-observe. Almost all of our ground control is fairly open. If I have a site that has a lot of obstructions, I may decide to come back at a later time to do the second occupation, recognizing that it is possible for multipath to affect the integers the same way in a short period of time. I have never seen a problem at an "open" site. We have certain clients (DOT's) who are willing to pay for having two totally separate occupations of each point at different times of day (at least 2 hours difference in sidereal time).?ÿ?ÿ
The ebubble seems to vary in it's location relative to the range pole bubble. Sometimes it matches the range pole bubble, sometimes it doesn't. Is the R10 calibrating using the range pole plumb or is it using a calculated plumb in the R10?
I don't trust the R10 when it counts down precision like that. If its a shot that matters you will have to set control and get a total station out.
Having an electronic bubble on the display is an added cost option??ÿ Shocking Trimble would be so picayune.?ÿ
The ebubble seems to vary in it's location relative to the range pole bubble. Sometimes it matches the range pole bubble, sometimes it doesn't. Is the R10 calibrating using the range pole plumb or is it using a calculated plumb in the R10?
The latter is the prescribed method. EDIT just checked - they have changed the advice to calibrate mounted on a vertical pole -?ÿ https://help.trimblegeospatial.com/TrimbleAccess/2018.00/en/Sensor-calibration.htm
That's the routine I use to calibrate, but it doesn't explain why the ebubble varies from the rod bubble.
I rely on the rod bubble because I know it's right.
I can't speak for Trimble or other manufacturers with tilt compensation, but I think regardless of the sensors or calibration used, the only way to get accurate tilt compensation results is by calibrating to a pole with a calibrated bubble level. This is because of the potential for misalignment in the sensor relative to the receiver housing, the misalignment of the female thread relative to the receiver housing and the male thread relative to the pole. The sensor could be perfectly calibrated and have a high degree of precision, but any misalignment mentioned above will project the tip of the pole incorrectly. However the bias can be removed by comparing the receiver tilt to an accurate bubble?ÿ much like taring a scale.?ÿ
?ÿ
Also of note, these sensors are likely affixed to an integrated circuit board and may not be perfectly aligned and could possibly be influenced by temperature.?ÿ
So in short. You're saying go with the bubble?
When you calibrate is the rod bubble central? If so then they should match at this stage.
Trouble is - if the R10 gets put back on the pole with slightly different (mis) alignment then it will be no longer represent a plumb pole. I can't remember if the quick release allows rotation. That will definitely make a difference.
I hate to state the obvious, but if the electronic bubble and the [spirit] rod bubble don't agree regardless of rotation, then ONE (or BOTH) of them are FUBAR. It has been pointed out above, there are quite a number of variables?ÿthat can enter into this condition.
Start with the simplest (say... rod run-out) and work your way up (literally) through the possible error sources until you get to the fancy magic stuff?ÿ?ÿon top of said rod. I'll bet there is something funky between the tip of the rod, and the mount point for the GNSS head. If not, turn the magic bubble crap OFF, and get back to work?ÿthe good old fashion way.
Just my 2 bits
Loyal?ÿ
Our rods have two bubbles at 90d to each other, the R10 electronic bubble has always been in sync with them when calibrated, but no one uses it much, it's an add on that's interesting.
Our rods have two bubbles at 90d to each other, the R10 electronic bubble has always been in sync with them when calibrated, but no one uses it much, it's an add on that's interesting.
Good to hear, everything is as it SHOULD be!
I have seen enough "not so straight" rods that it's the first thing I check when I buy a new one.
Loyal
I find the need to calibrate that e-bubble a PIA and routinely check the rods bubble with a plumb bob hanging off a door frame. Best investment we made was in rod tripods to keep them from falling over and getting smacked when idled while pounding lath or note taking. If the rod's extended when it falls it's a safe bet it's now bent.
Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.
The Leica one must be affected the same way.
No it isn't.?ÿ If you're talking about the 18T it has the only tilt compensation I've found to be worthwhile among GNSS receivers.?ÿ Not a Leica Evangelist (I use mostly Trimble, also), but I wish the R10 had the tilt comensation ability the GS18T does.?ÿ It is a rock star.?ÿ From a brief demo, the GS18T doesn't fix in canopy quite as well, I'd say it's a touch more conservative.?ÿ The Galileo SVs seem to make a HUGE impact on the GS18T's performance, though, and since more were launched my comparison may be out-dated.?ÿ Althought the R10 gets to make use of those, too.?ÿ It just seems like Leica may be a touch ahead on the triple-frequency curve.?ÿ Time will tell...
?ÿ
Honestly the electronic bubble is mostly a gimmick.
It can be useful those few times when you can't see the pole bubble - but most of the time its a waste of screen space.
We are now purchasing our new R10's with the bubble option turned off - its just not worth the $$$ Trimble are asking for it.
Would be interested to try the new Leica to see if it is any better.
?ÿ
Not being able to see the bubble is a frequent issue for us ... in lieu of an e-bubble, maybe an adjustable one of these on the pole?: