[time-nuts] HP 117/10509a...

paul swed paulswedb at gmail.com
Sat Jul 7 23:53:47 UTC 2012


Oh my now you are about to get me going but yes indeed.
We are paying for the services and yet a new scheme comes out with
documentation thats a bit sketchy in areas as I dug in. Some of its obvious
on the second or 3rd read but you are still reading between the lines.
However there does seem to be a company that will make $ off of the silicon
they will develop.
Kind of seems out of line.
Regards
Paul.

On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Majdi S. Abbas <msa at latt.net> wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 07, 2012 at 02:23:56PM -0700, J. Forster wrote:
> > I agree with that objective, but, I have seen peoplwe take BC-611 radios
> > and put cheap CB into the box. That interests me not in the slightest.
>
> John,
>
>         Depends.
>
>         For time of day receivers, a retrofit makes a lot of sense.
> Otherwise you need to deal with providing your own serial, IRIG,
> display, etc. outputs.
>
>         I'm not sure I want to reimplement all that if I can pass
> the time code through and synthesize the modulation.
>
>         At least in the short term.  Long term, you want to develop
> the whole thing, but this will get receivers working until that
> can happen.
>
>         [Warning: More whining below.  :) ]
>
> > I agree the LORAN-C shutdown was idiotic, but NIST is essentially
> > obsoleting all phase tracking receivers by going to BPSK. IMO, it is
> > essentially like the change from LORAN-A to LORAN-C, except that it will
> > happen at some defined date/time rather than over the years.
>
>         No, and that's my biggest problem.  There /isn't/ a defined
> date/time.  We got a week long experiment, then a month long experiment,
> then "sometime in July or August this becomes permanent."
>
>         If there had actually been a published timeline, as well as
> a published specification for the new modulation, so that we had
> time to work on this in advance, I'd really have no objection.
>
>         But there are still no docs and we still have no date -- the
> best we can tell is, the change will happen before there is any
> additional documentation besides the PTTI paper.
>
>         Supposedly this is because they are still testing, but who
> rolls out a change to a production service without knowing what it
> is until the last minute?
>
>         Here, a lot of people received their notification from
> vendors like Spectracom -- why is a vendor notifying me of changes
> to a government service?  Shouldn't NIST do that themselves?  Why
> not a published announcement on the WWVB website?  (Not just the
> testing announcements, but a real notification that a permanent
> change is pending and what it's going to look like.)
>
>         Shoot, why not announcements on WWV/H?  There's probably a
> fair bit of overlap in terms of people that use both.
>
>         After the loss of LORAN, losing the only backup we have,
> without a defined timeframe, and with no ability to develop a
> receiver in advance, is really pretty bad.  Even USCG gave us
> some notice.
>
>         --msa
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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