[time-nuts] 60 KHz Receiver

J. Forster jfor at quik.com
Tue Oct 5 04:47:13 UTC 2010


Another thought: Does anybody know if the LORAN frequency band has been
re-assigned. If not, I wonder if it could be gotten as a ham band?

FWIW,

-John

===============

> Wow.... you really missed my point and by having someone
> listening/monitoring it is not broadcasting.  Especially if it is in
> reality
> for the most part... telemetry.
>
> Maybe I wasn't clear or maybe my message could have been misunderstood.
> For
> that, I am truly sorry.  I was thinking along the lines of what John
> stated,
> "a beacon network that works like LORAN...".
>
> * I'll shut up now and go back to just reading the posts for another month
> or so..."
>
> 73 Brice KA8MAV
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jimlux" <jimlux at earthlink.net>
> To: "Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement"
> <time-nuts at febo.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 11:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] 60 KHz Receiver
>
>
>> Heathkid wrote:
>>> Doesn't someone on here with a Ham license have a Cs standard and
>>> "could"
>>> put up a 1pps signal?  Simply transmit your callsign within the 1pps
>>> (there has to be a way) and we have a non-Govt. time standard "if
>>> needed".  A simple 1pps PSK-31 (or other digital mode) signal would
>>> probably work and be completely legal.  Let's do this on our own and
>>> not
>>> rely on Govt. or GPS... Several throughout the world acting together
>>> (I'm
>>> not a programmer so someone could step up and figure out the logistics
>>> for a receiver) and we would have an alternative to GPS (IF/when it
>>> stops
>>> working).
>>>
>>
>> a) broadcasts aren't legal for US hams
>> b) ionospheric uncertainty in the skywave path makes this no better than
>> WWV
>> c) Whats wrong with GPS and/or WWV and/or CHU or whatever?
>> d) A cheap Rb would give you a local reference that is much better than
>> what you could do with receiving something via skywave.
>>
>> If you want something that isn't run by governments,and is a technical
>> challenge, how about pulsars?   I'd guess (not having looked into it at
>> all) that is would be cheaper to set up a station to receive pulsars
>> than
>> to run a Cs standard.
>>
>> While I fully sympathize with the "stand alone" approach (that's one of
>> the appeals of HF comms in general.. you aren't depending on anyone
>> else's
>> infrastructure), I don't know that setting up a time standards station
>> fits in with that..
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
>> To unsubscribe, go to
>> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>> and follow the instructions there.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to
> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>
>





More information about the time-nuts mailing list