Another thought: Does anybody know if the LORAN frequency band has been re-assigned. If not, I wonder if it could be gotten as a ham band?
FWIW, -John =============== > Wow.... you really missed my point and by having someone > listening/monitoring it is not broadcasting. Especially if it is in > reality > for the most part... telemetry. > > Maybe I wasn't clear or maybe my message could have been misunderstood. > For > that, I am truly sorry. I was thinking along the lines of what John > stated, > "a beacon network that works like LORAN...". > > * I'll shut up now and go back to just reading the posts for another month > or so..." > > 73 Brice KA8MAV > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "jimlux" <[email protected]> > To: "Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement" > <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 11:39 PM > Subject: Re: [time-nuts] 60 KHz Receiver > > >> Heathkid wrote: >>> Doesn't someone on here with a Ham license have a Cs standard and >>> "could" >>> put up a 1pps signal? Simply transmit your callsign within the 1pps >>> (there has to be a way) and we have a non-Govt. time standard "if >>> needed". A simple 1pps PSK-31 (or other digital mode) signal would >>> probably work and be completely legal. Let's do this on our own and >>> not >>> rely on Govt. or GPS... Several throughout the world acting together >>> (I'm >>> not a programmer so someone could step up and figure out the logistics >>> for a receiver) and we would have an alternative to GPS (IF/when it >>> stops >>> working). >>> >> >> 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. >> >> 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.. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > > _______________________________________________ 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.
