[time-nuts] Receiving the MSF time signal on cheap radio modules

Bob kb8tq kb8tq at n1k.org
Tue Feb 6 15:34:23 EST 2018


If you want to get even more “nutty", look at the “seed” that you likely already have 
for the computation. In this day and age, you probably know what day / month / year it is. 
Since you might not (say) know the hour, you have a +/- 1 day sort of tolerance on that. It rolls 
into month and year in some cases. The seed adds complexity, but probably makes
things more robust. 

If the purpose is to “always be right” then retaining a seed probably improves things. 

The flip side is (of course) “what if I’ve been lied to?”. That applies with or without a seed. 
Heading off into a situation where you never (re)lock could be one result. How long do you go before 
you decide to try something else? 

One cute thing is that this stuff is (in general) not very compute intensive. If data past the 
minute tick is being looked at, you probably can afford to run multiple parallel solutions (even 
on a < $5 MCU). 

Lots of zigs and zags ….


> On Feb 6, 2018, at 2:37 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk at phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
> --------
> In message <CAGJ4F+6Nvic=RoUH7EozhKLCDziBTorMGu0iKj-sK6iXjw+zsQ at mail.gmail.com>
> , "Deirdre O'Byrne" writes:
>> I've been trying to see if I could design a decoding algorithm that
>> would be more noise-tolerant than the algorithms I've seen out in
>> the wild.
> You can: I baptised it "the blame algoritm".
> The trick is not to try to accept pulses as valid but to try to
> throw out pulses which are impossible.
> Imagine you have a 120 second long shift-register, and you feed
> your received pulses into it.
> Then try brute force, for every one of the newest 60 positions if
> that can be the start of a minute or not, by testing all the
> constraints you can think of, and there are surprisingly many.
> Some are obvious, the bits encoding the hour cannot contain "39",
> but that is a remarkable weak filter that seldom kicks in.
> A much stronger filter is that the bits encoding the hour must be
> the same as in the previous minute *unless* minutes were 59 in the
> previous minute *and* zero in this minute.
> If you count it up, that is a strong and very peculiar relationship
> on all the hour-bits and all the minutes-bits and if even one single
> of them are wrong, you can definitively discard that theory for the
> start of the minute.
> A similar thing holds for the date bits, the time in the
> previous minute must be 23:59:59 and in this 00:00:00 for
> there to be any difference between the dates, and even
> then, only a small number of possible changes in the date
> bits are valid.
> If you look in http://phk.freebsd.dk/phkrel/NTPns.20080902.tgz
> you will find a file called dcf77_blame.c with my code,
> here is a couple of the simpler tests:
>        /* LSB of minutes must be different from previous minute */
>        j = ip->shiftprev[(offset + 21) % 60];
>        if (j * ip->shiftreg[(offset + 21) % 60] > 0)
>                FAIL((why, " 0"));
>        /*
>         * If the LSB of minutes was '1' in previous minute
>         * the next higher bit must have changed, if it was
>         * a '0' it must not.
>         */
>        if (j *
>            ip->shiftreg[(offset + 22) % 60] *
>            ip->shiftprev[(offset + 22) % 60] > 0)
>                FAIL((why, " 1"));
> When using this algorithm, missing pulses is almost a
> non-issue up to around 40% of them missing, and even
> in an enviroment like that, it is not uncommon to see
> the algorithm lock on to the minute in about 34 seconds
> and know the full time in less than 3 minutes.
> If you make your pulse width discriminator *really* selective,
> which you might as well, you can "blacklist" disproved
> minute positions for the next many minutes as the
> risk of a '1' and '0' being confused is close to zero.
> That will get you minute lock, even with 70%-90% missing
> pulses, in a matter of minutes if you use a longer
> shift register.
> I did a parallel prototype for MSF, but I didn't need it
> so I never completed it, not sure I have it around any
> more.
> I should really write an article about that code...
> Poul-Henning
> -- 
> Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
> phk at FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
> FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
> Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
> _______________________________________________
> 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