A document I found via UrsaNav's web site describes the basic premise of eLORAN, and indicates that it is intended to be backward compatible, although the timing and navigation performance will not be any better than before. This seems reasonable. The 'e' part adds a data channel that adds corrections for propagation and such to improve the accuracy, which obviously the old receivers can't support.
It appears that the sales pitch is to provide a reliable backup for the satellite based systems as well as better penetration into urban canyons and buildings than GPS offers. The document does provide some predicted performance specs for time and position. UrsaNav looks to be selling receivers for this, some of which would be very small, and some would offer eLORAN plus GNSS capability. Tom Holmes, N8ZM Tipp City, OH EM79 > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 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 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 > miles from the Nantucket site. > Will keep trying > Regards > Paul > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Bob Camp <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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" < > > [email protected]> 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 that any long-term deployment would be > > backward-compatible with legacy Loran receivers (not the same as the > > initial tests being backward-compatible)? The primary revenue stream > > would appear to be from sales of new receivers that use patented > > technology (unless the government wants to get back into the business > > of subsidizing Loran, which it just vacated -- not very likely). > > Cynical, maybe, but it is always a good idea to keep an eye on the > > money. I suppose they could make the enhancements transparent to > > legacy receivers, so you would buy new receivers if you needed the > > enhancements but could also use older receivers if you didn't. But > > would they? There does not appear to be an incentive to do so, absent a > government subsidy. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Charles > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
