ruta AA8K
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 9:16 AM
> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Loran transmitters back on the air
>
>
> In 1983 we were testing Loran for a vehicle
> tracking application. We had a van with a
> Lora
Loran C absolute accuracy is between 0.1 and 0.25 miles (
http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/APN/Chapt-12.pdf)
but the repeatability is way better (from 60 to 300 feet, same ref).
When it was safe and fun to fly to Baja, Mexico I would record both ends of
the runway with my Nor
In 1983 we were testing Loran for a vehicle
tracking application. We had a van with a
Loran aviation antenna mounted on the roof
and a relatively inexpensive marine Loran
receiver.
We started with an informal test. This was
miles inland, about an hour's drive North
of Detroit, Michigan.
We pa
FETs filament... :)
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 3:12 PM, paul swed wrote:
> LORAN C
> Seems my fet preamp is working as I discovered this morning. Maybe the fets
> filament needed to warm up overnight. May have to dig in a bit. But oddly
> after a few minutes neither austron has begun to lock.
> I am
LORAN C
Seems my fet preamp is working as I discovered this morning. Maybe the fets
filament needed to warm up overnight. May have to dig in a bit. But oddly
after a few minutes neither austron has begun to lock.
I am running a hp 3586 off the same active antenna splitter and hearing the
loran stat
Peter wrote:
Government subsidy, like letting them use the frequency?
Like paying them as contractors to operate the transmitters.
Best regards,
Charles
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.
In message <4f50645b.40...@employees.org>, Cliff Sojourner writes:
>had a sailboat in the 80s and 90s, used a West Marine LORAN receiver and
>antenna... easily got better than 100' accuracy and repeatability, year
>after year.
There is a very big difference in VLF performance at sea, high in t
had a sailboat in the 80s and 90s, used a West Marine LORAN receiver and
antenna... easily got better than 100' accuracy and repeatability, year
after year. we went to the same anchor holes all the time, took angular
sights to confirm the LORAN. loved it. never had a GPS until after the
tur
I about agree. It consistently nailed my position w/in about 100 feet on a
LORAN Chart using an early uP (8085) based receiver (Appelco). The
antenna was a Radio Shack whip with a preamp at its base.
With an Austron 2100F against a Rb and Oscilloquartz or HP 117A things
were reliably in few in 10
Keith Peshak has a setup located in Georgetown Texas that tracks the
position of a fixed Loran antenna and an fixed GPS antenna. The Loran
beats the GPS all of the time does not need wide area augmentation to
nail down the center of a runway.
On 3/1/2012 10:26 PM, Hal Murray wrote:
What sort
In my experience, Loran C will get you into a foot ball field
sized area of where you are going, day or nite, rain or shine.
The big difference is Loran C needs a more substantial antenna
than does GPS. I don't think you will be finding a reliable
Loran C receiver in a smart phone.
-Chuck Harri
What sort of accuracy can I expect from a Loran type system?
I assume the answer is "it depends", but I'm looking for the overview type
answer. What does it depend upon? What are the ballpark type answers? What
info should I be providing to get better answers?
I assume it depends upon the d
The publication in the federal register, here
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-01-11/html/2012-307.htm
says they are playing with more than Loran. There are
several MF bands they are playing with as well, in particular
the dGPS bands and 500 kHz.
I noticed a while ago that UrsaNav's UN-
Government subsidy, like letting them use the frequency?
On 3/1/2012 8:09 PM, Charles P. Steinmetz wrote:
Greg wrote:
A friend in Texas has confirmed that Loran signals are now up and receivers
are showing position. I am including a note from UrsaNav regarding this event.
What are the odds
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Charles P. Steinmetz
wrote:
> Well, if they get no revenue from legacy users, how does the increased user
> base benefit them (and, thus, why would they care)? The only path I see is,
> "Get 'em hooked using their old receivers, and...
The paying customer is the
Bob wrote:
The obvious advantage to backwards compatibility would be much
greater coverage area. It is a bit tough to envision them getting a
reasonable user population with a 100% from scratch approach. Indeed
that may be wishful thinking.
Well, if they get no revenue from legacy users, how
> From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On
> Behalf Of paul swed
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 8:26 PM
> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Loran transmitters back on the air.
>
> Eloran is compatible wit
Hmmm did find a paper that suggests various goals and such and the old
loran gear might not work. Depends on what modes they try.
Would be great to find some form of updated news.
Regards
Paul.
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 8:25 PM, paul swed wrote:
> Eloran is compatible with the older timing rcvrs. O
Eloran is compatible with the older timing rcvrs. Or at least it was
supposed to be. Now the message suggests that they will try other
modulation modes. I couldn't find anything really further then what was
sent.
I did hook the longwire directly to the austron so far no lock and I am
less then 70 m
Hi
The obvious advantage to backwards compatibility would be much greater coverage
area. It is a bit tough to envision them getting a reasonable user population
with a 100% from scratch approach. Indeed that may be wishful thinking.
Bob
On Mar 1, 2012, at 8:09 PM, "Charles P. Steinmetz"
wr
Terrific news!
-John
> Well darn
> Though I can hear them on the longwire with a hp3586. It appears the loran
> c preamp may have bit the dust. I checked the austrons with the simulator
> and they are doing fine.
> Will have to look at the preamp this weekend. Easily fixable genera
Hi
It would be interesting to find a few more details...
Bob
On Mar 1, 2012, at 8:06 PM, paul swed wrote:
> Well darn
> Though I can hear them on the longwire with a hp3586. It appears the loran
> c preamp may have bit the dust. I checked the austrons with the simulator
> and they are doing
Greg wrote:
A friend in Texas has confirmed that Loran signals are now up and
receivers are showing position. I am including a note from UrsaNav
regarding this event.
What are the odds that any long-term deployment would be
backward-compatible with legacy Loran receivers (not the same as the
Well darn
Though I can hear them on the longwire with a hp3586. It appears the loran
c preamp may have bit the dust. I checked the austrons with the simulator
and they are doing fine.
Will have to look at the preamp this weekend. Easily fixable generally
speaking.
Can tell at least on the eastcoast
Well that would indeed be one heck of a late xmas present will fire up the
system tonight
THANK you
Paul
WB8TSL
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Greg Broburg wrote:
> A friend in Texas has confirmed that Loran signals are now up and
> receivers are showing position. I am including a note from Urs
A friend in Texas has confirmed that Loran signals are now up and
receivers are showing position. I am including a note from UrsaNav
regarding this event.
TIME FOR LIFE
UrsaNav Testing Wide-Area Timing Alternative
February 29, 2012. This week, for the first time since August 2010,
advanced L
26 matches
Mail list logo
