On Oct 4, 2010, at 9:43 PM, "Heathkid" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > The FCC is kind of down on transmissions not intended for a specific recipient. There are some exceptions, and informal agreements (e.g. Aprs isnt to a specific recipient, but is intended for one of a group) Not a big deal though, you can get an. Experimental license, though... > 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...". You could do an experiment like that with a group, but I don't think it's viable as a continuing operation. And besides, I don't know that it really "fills a need"... HF isn't great for time distribution, and there aren't suitable bands for hams down low. > > * I'll shut up now and go back to just reading the posts for another month or > so..." Naah.... All ideas are interesting, and just because *I* don't think it's great doesn't mean that someone else might not think it's the bees knees.... > > 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.
