Paper detail

Preliminary experimental results of determining the geopotential difference between two synchronized portable hydrogen clocks at different locations

Here, we provide preliminary experimental results of the geopotential determination based on time elapse comparisons between two remote atomic clocks located at Beijing and Wuhan, respectively. After synchronizing two hydrogen atomic clocks at Beijing 203 Institute Laboratory (BIL) for 20 days as zero-baseline calibration, we transport one clock to Luojiashan Time-Frequency Station (LTS), Wuhan, without stopping its running. Continuous comparisons between the two remote clocks were conducted for 65 days based on the Common View Satellite Time Transfer (CVSTT) technique. The ensemble empirical mode decomposition (EEMD) technique is applied to removing the uninteresting periodic signals contaminated in the original CVSTT observations to obtain the residual clocks-offsets series, from which the time elapse between the two remote clocks was determined. Based on the accumulated time elapse between these two clocks the geopotential difference between these two stations was determined. Given the orthometric height (OH) of BIL, the OH of the LTS was determined based on the determined geopotential difference. Comparisons show that the OH of the LTS determined by time elapse comparisons deviates from that determined by Earth gravity model EGM2008 by about 98 m. The results are consistent with the frequency stabilities of the hydrogen atomic clocks (at the level of $10^{-15}$/day) applied in our experiments. In addition, we used 85-days original observations to determine the geopotential difference between two remote stations based on the CVSTT technique. Using more precise atomic or optical clocks, the CVSTT method for geopotential determination could be applied effectively and extensively in geodesy in the future.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.