[time-nuts] WWVB BPSK Receiver Project?

[paul swed]

I am afraid that like John my concern is the frequency reference. Time?
Heck it comes by the internet, WWV or GPS and lastly good old watches that
do pretty well these days. No comments on celphones. So the term is
screwed. All of the sampling and computer processing may indeed loose the
primary reference quality for frequency measurement.
So is all lost?
Well maybe not completely.
Those old receivers are actually pretty nice for filtering the incoming
signal and such. A Singer I have has a good collins 60 Kc filter. So
perhaps as a gain stage they still have value. It gets interesting at the
next step and thats what to do about the reversals of the carrier.
A question I have is this. Since the samples are actually slow on the
comparison. Would a 117 even see it. Is it perhaps just adding additional
filtering. All speculation on my part.
I need to read the dock we have just received more carefully to get a
better understanding.
Happy to run up the fluke 207 and a 117 perhaps on the next set of tests
and see what happens. (207 is actually Johns old unit) Also have a
spectracom 8170. But thats really a clock and as stated should work fine.
Regards
Paul.
WB8TSL

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 8:13 PM, J. Forster <jfor at quikus.com> wrote:

> Brooke,
>
> As I've said, I don't care about the Time. The time determined by the
> start of TV or radio programs is plenty good enough to keep any
> appointments.
>
> My only interest is as a standard of Time Interval as a reference for
> synthesizers, counters, etc.
>
> If you think about it, unless you are doing something like occultation or
> eclipse timing or eBay, the ToD rarely matters.
>
> They killed LORAN, which worked beautifully.
>
> Now it looks like they are going to kill WWVB, which is a bit more
> involved, but works.
>
> GPS is not an option without a tall tower.
>
> This is NOT progress, IMO.
>
> -John
>
> ==============
>
>
> > Hi John:
> >
> > They are going to maintain the existing AM modulation format so all the
> > WWVB "Atomic Clocks" will still work.  The phase
> > modulation is added on top of that.
> >
> > Yes, I expect my HP 117 may no longer work, but I'd much rather have the
> > improved s/n and timing accuracy.
> >
> > Have Fun,
> >
> > Brooke Clarke
> > http://www.PRC68.com
> > http://www.end2partygovernment.com/Brooke4Congress.html
> >
> >
> > J. Forster wrote:
> >> All very nice, but if this change renders all existing receivers
> >> useless.
> >> How does that improve things?
> >>
> >> All it does is wipe out all the existing phase tracking infrastructure.
> >>
> >> The only benefit is to the government who can reuse the WWVB transmitter
> >> and frequency allocation. Everybody else will have to buy new stuff.
> >>
> >> Sounds a lot like HDTV fiasco. Making jobs (in China or Korea) by making
> >> scrap.
> >>
> >> YMMV,
> >>
> >> -John
> >>
> >> ==============
> >>
> >>
> >>> Dear Time-Nuts,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I sure would like a WWVB BPSK receiver for the new modulation. (..)
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm sure in time there will be plenty of low cost ICs designed to
> >>>> receive the
> >> [SNIP}
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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.
>