In message 4b130e24.6050...@rubidium.dyndns.org, Magnus Danielson writes:
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
That particular aspect have been in deep investigation, and so has the
M-codes. Their similarity in strength and code separation make the
effect less than the gain you get. The BOC code aids to
(maybe two orders
of magnitude ?) than common literature would suggest is possible. Something
to do when I retire (:
- Original Message
From: Stanley Reynolds stanley_reyno...@yahoo.com
To: time-nuts@febo.com
Sent: Sun, November 29, 2009 12:35:50 PM
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] LORAN-C
Mark Spencer wrote:
Yep... There is some room for experimenation. As an example looking at some
of the results reported from the ARRL Frequency measuring test, it seems that
some of the participants are able to determine the frequencies of HF signals
progated via sky waves with an accuracy
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 4b130e24.6050...@rubidium.dyndns.org, Magnus Danielson writes:
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
That particular aspect have been in deep investigation, and so has the
M-codes. Their similarity in strength and code separation make the
effect less than the gain you
, November 28, 2009 2:47:55 PM
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] LORAN-C demise
Hi
Some of us have been trying to get the telcom OEM's to embrace a backup for
GPS. There are a number of possible things they could do at various points in
their networks. Different companies have pushed different approaches for many
How about the Volunteer Association of GPS Backup for Timing, VAGBT ?
Propose of the group is to provide backup distribution of timing information
for GPS users, via armature radio and cesium clocks. To develop many local
transmit stations as possible and low cost receivers with both extended
Any thoughts on how complex a receiver would need to be to produce a 1 pps
signal that was locked to the carrier frequency it was receiving ? Lot#39;s of
comercial transmitting equipment is designed to use an external frequency
standard and if a transmitter at a high altitude site was locked to
Hi guys,
Are there any manufacturers that currently produce LORAN receivers? I
talked to a pilot friend who is very active in my area and he said he is
only aware of one person he knows that has a LORAN receiver in his aircraft
and the guy doesn't use it. None of my other pilot buddies seem to
On 11/29/09 11:40 AM, Mark Spencer mspencer12...@yahoo.ca wrote:
Any thoughts on how complex a receiver would need to be to produce a 1 pps
signal that was locked to the carrier frequency it was receiving ? Lot#39;s
of comercial transmitting equipment is designed to use an external
The main difference is that receiving lf signals is challenging in many areas
built up areas and the doppler shift of hf via sky wave reduces the accuracy
considerably, while there are already a large number of exisiting high power
transmitters that can be locked to an external time base and
Looking at the vhf/UHF ham repeater as a model, it is possible to get
government and commercial cooperation but this is often with the assistance of
a insider. A ham that is also the station engineer for example. My idea was to
end run the government and commercial interest with the idea that
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:25:06PM -0800, Mark Spencer wrote:
The main difference is that receiving lf signals is challenging in
many areas built up areas and the doppler shift of hf via sky wave
reduces the accuracy considerably, while there are already a large
number of exisiting high power
Hi,
Well, most of this discussion is about GPS backup. The GLONASS system has
received global coverage (again) for navigation. Timing is less demanding
if we consider the static and known position case. In some years we will
have Galileo (Euro) and Compass (China). Perhaps also regional Japanese
Stanley Reynolds wrote:
It is clear that the government and commercial interest made a decision about GPS backup by not developing or using loran or other systems. The question is if the GPS signal stops as the loran signal will what will I check my standards with ? By stopping I mean a system
David I. Emery wrote:
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:25:06PM -0800, Mark Spencer wrote:
The main difference is that receiving lf signals is challenging in
many areas built up areas and the doppler shift of hf via sky wave
reduces the accuracy considerably, while there are already a large
number of
b...@lysator.liu.se wrote:
Hi,
Well, most of this discussion is about GPS backup. The GLONASS system has
received global coverage (again) for navigation. Timing is less demanding
if we consider the static and known position case. In some years we will
have Galileo (Euro) and Compass (China).
In message 4b130050.1050...@rubidium.dyndns.org, Magnus Danielson writes:
b...@lysator.liu.se wrote:
L1, L2, L3, L4 and L5 jammers is off the shelf. Not particular
efficient, not to speak of L3 and L4 being of no significant use.
Not to mention the fact that there is a good probability that
GPS
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 4b130050.1050...@rubidium.dyndns.org, Magnus Danielson writes:
b...@lysator.liu.se wrote:
L1, L2, L3, L4 and L5 jammers is off the shelf. Not particular
efficient, not to speak of L3 and L4 being of no significant use.
Not to mention the fact that there
In message 4b130050.1050...@rubidium.dyndns.org, Magnus Danielson
writes:
b...@lysator.liu.se wrote:
L1, L2, L3, L4 and L5 jammers is off the shelf. Not particular
efficient, not to speak of L3 and L4 being of no significant use.
Not to mention the fact that there is a good probability that
b...@lysator.liu.se wrote:
In message 4b130050.1050...@rubidium.dyndns.org, Magnus Danielson
writes:
b...@lysator.liu.se wrote:
L1, L2, L3, L4 and L5 jammers is off the shelf. Not particular
efficient, not to speak of L3 and L4 being of no significant use.
Not to mention the fact that there is
Given the confusing and seemingly ambiguous infomation on the .gov site, a
clearer picture is given by this announcement:
http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/news/coast-guard-jettisons-loran-9178
excerpted below:
Coast Guard Jettisons Loran
November 25, 2009
--
The
There are on-line petition sites where people can sign on to support a
particular cause. Has anyone started such a petition to save LORAN?
I've not seen one.
Best,
-John
==
Given the confusing and seemingly ambiguous infomation on the .gov site, a
clearer picture is given by
Time and frequency measurement people were specifically
exclude from the polls I have seen to determine whether
or not Loran should continue. They only wanted navigation
users input... and I guess there weren't any.
-Chuck
J. Forster wrote:
There are on-line petition sites where people can
My impression is that significant stake-holders (e.g. Telecom service
providers, ILECs, AOPA, National Laboratories, FAA, NIST, DHS, CG, and
others) were unwilling - at an institutional level - to embrace or own any
aspect of LORAN preservation and unable - at an individual level - to
influence
Hi
Some of us have been trying to get the telcom OEM's to embrace a backup for
GPS. There are a number of possible things they could do at various points in
their networks. Different companies have pushed different approaches for many
years. In all cases the response has been the carriers
Well that surely is pretty clear.
Now will DHS sign off I suspect yes
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 2:09 PM, ken hartman kdhart...@gmail.com wrote:
Given the confusing and seemingly ambiguous infomation on the .gov site, a
clearer picture is given by this announcement:
Here is the ALCOAST COMMANDANT NOTE:
675/09 LONG RANGE NAVIGATION (LORAN-C) TERMINATION 11/25/2009
http://www.uscg.mil/ANNOUNCEMENTS/
(apology in advance, if this was already posted.)
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go
27 matches
Mail list logo
