The publication in the federal register, here http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-01-11/html/2012-307.htm
says they are playing with more than Loran. There are several MF bands they are playing with as well, in particular the dGPS bands and 500 kHz. I noticed a while ago that UrsaNav's UN-151 receiver was advertised as being "capable of processing multiple signals in the LF and MF bands", and wondered what the "MF" part was about. That is a bit clearer now. Dennis Ferguson On 1 Mar, 2012, at 21:04 , paul swed wrote: > Hmmm did find a paper that suggests various goals and such and the old > loran gear might not work. Depends on what modes they try. > Would be great to find some form of updated news. > Regards > Paul. > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 8:25 PM, paul swed <paulsw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 <li...@rtty.us> 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" < >>> charles_steinm...@lavabit.com> 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 -- time-nuts@febo.com >>>> To unsubscribe, go to >>> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts >>>> and follow the instructions there. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com >>> To unsubscribe, go to >>> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts >>> and follow the instructions there. >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.