[time-nuts] 60 KHz Receiver

Jim Lux jimlux at earthlink.net
Tue Oct 5 13:36:30 UTC 2010



On Oct 4, 2010, at 9:43 PM, "Heathkid" <heathkid at heathkid.com> wrote:

> 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.
> 

The FCC is kind of down on transmissions not intended for a specific recipient.  There are some exceptions, and informal agreements (e.g. Aprs isnt to a specific recipient, but is intended for one of a group) Not a big deal though, you  can get an. Experimental license, though...
 
> 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...".

You could do an experiment like that with a group, but I don't think it's viable as a continuing operation.  

And besides, I don't know that it really "fills a need"...  HF isn't great for time distribution, and there aren't suitable bands for hams down low.


> 
> * I'll shut up now and go back to just reading the posts for another month or so..."

Naah....  All ideas are interesting, and just because *I* don't think it's great doesn't mean that someone else might not think it's the bees knees....


> 
> 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