> a) broadcasts aren't legal for US hams > b) ionospheric uncertainty in the skywave path makes this no better than > WWV > c) Whats wrong with GPS and/or WWV and/or CHU or whatever? > d) A cheap Rb would give you a local reference that is much better than > what you could do with receiving something via skywave. > > If you want something that isn't run by governments,and is a technical > challenge, how about pulsars? I'd guess (not having looked into it at > all) that is would be cheaper to set up a station to receive pulsars > than to run a Cs standard.
Pulsars take a big dish and they aren't all that good as a standard. A friend of mine proved that at Aricebo years and years ago. > While I fully sympathize with the "stand alone" approach (that's one of > the appeals of HF comms in general.. you aren't depending on anyone > else's infrastructure), I don't know that setting up a time standards > station fits in with that.. I've vaguely heard that there are some new ham allocations in the works below 500 KHz. How about setting up a beacon network that works like LORAN, but at a different frequency. A simple downconverter could then feed the signal into a LORAN receiver? FWIW, -John ============== _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
