Hi … and because the documentation is sketchy, there just *may* be an "oh, by the way, we didn't mention it earlier but the new modulation includes ….." sort of thing.
Bob On Jul 7, 2012, at 7:53 PM, paul swed wrote: > Oh my now you are about to get me going but yes indeed. > We are paying for the services and yet a new scheme comes out with > documentation thats a bit sketchy in areas as I dug in. Some of its obvious > on the second or 3rd read but you are still reading between the lines. > However there does seem to be a company that will make $ off of the silicon > they will develop. > Kind of seems out of line. > Regards > Paul. > > On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Majdi S. Abbas <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sat, Jul 07, 2012 at 02:23:56PM -0700, J. Forster wrote: >>> I agree with that objective, but, I have seen peoplwe take BC-611 radios >>> and put cheap CB into the box. That interests me not in the slightest. >> >> John, >> >> Depends. >> >> For time of day receivers, a retrofit makes a lot of sense. >> Otherwise you need to deal with providing your own serial, IRIG, >> display, etc. outputs. >> >> I'm not sure I want to reimplement all that if I can pass >> the time code through and synthesize the modulation. >> >> At least in the short term. Long term, you want to develop >> the whole thing, but this will get receivers working until that >> can happen. >> >> [Warning: More whining below. :) ] >> >>> I agree the LORAN-C shutdown was idiotic, but NIST is essentially >>> obsoleting all phase tracking receivers by going to BPSK. IMO, it is >>> essentially like the change from LORAN-A to LORAN-C, except that it will >>> happen at some defined date/time rather than over the years. >> >> No, and that's my biggest problem. There /isn't/ a defined >> date/time. We got a week long experiment, then a month long experiment, >> then "sometime in July or August this becomes permanent." >> >> If there had actually been a published timeline, as well as >> a published specification for the new modulation, so that we had >> time to work on this in advance, I'd really have no objection. >> >> But there are still no docs and we still have no date -- the >> best we can tell is, the change will happen before there is any >> additional documentation besides the PTTI paper. >> >> Supposedly this is because they are still testing, but who >> rolls out a change to a production service without knowing what it >> is until the last minute? >> >> Here, a lot of people received their notification from >> vendors like Spectracom -- why is a vendor notifying me of changes >> to a government service? Shouldn't NIST do that themselves? Why >> not a published announcement on the WWVB website? (Not just the >> testing announcements, but a real notification that a permanent >> change is pending and what it's going to look like.) >> >> Shoot, why not announcements on WWV/H? There's probably a >> fair bit of overlap in terms of people that use both. >> >> After the loss of LORAN, losing the only backup we have, >> without a defined timeframe, and with no ability to develop a >> receiver in advance, is really pretty bad. Even USCG gave us >> some notice. >> >> --msa >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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.
