I think it died pretty quickly from all of the stuff I had seen at hamfests. Thats how I picked up my 6 X lucent RBs for nothing pretty much. Also my 180 watt rf amplifier. Regards Paul
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 1:38 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Dont you have GPS/Cs locked cell networks anymore in the US? > > http://www.endruntechnologies.com/cdma.htm > > -- > > Björn > > > In the real world, if GPS does not work, the WWVB change means you either > > have to buy the XW stuff or go do something else. > > > > YMMV > > > > -John > > > > ================= > > > > > > > >> On 9/26/12 7:11 PM, J. Forster wrote: > >>> But if someone here designed and built a $100 receiver and offered it > >>> to > >>> the group, that could well violate some of their IP. > >>> > >>> As to building a home brew receiver and certifying a onsie so your > >>> lab's > >>> cal is traceable, I'd certainly not trust a cal done that way. > >>> > >>> Doing spacecraft communications is hardly the same thing. > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> Well..if you're trying to do NIST traceable cals in a legally acceptable > >> way, then it's very unlikely that any homebuilt receiver that infringed > >> the patent would be acceptable, from a patent standpoint. The general > >> exemption to practice the invention is for development of a new > >> invention, not to make use of it for other reasons (otherwise, the > >> patent wouldn't be particularly useful in terms of exclusivity). > >> > >> OTOH, if you cobble up a (non-infringing) receiver and validate its > >> performance analytically, why wouldn't that be acceptable for a > >> traceable calibration. It's no different than using a homebuilt quartz > >> oscillator as a transfer standard, is it? > >> > >> Now, if you're selling calibration services, it would be a tougher sell > >> to your customers: they'd have to believe in your analysis or oscillator > >> building. This is in the sense that if I use a HP 105, the long history > >> and tradition of HP is essentially standing behind the design and the > >> published performance standards; a homebuilt standard has a higher bar > >> for the great unwashed public. > >> > >> If you want traceability for, say, a journal article, then I think the > >> bar is set differently. For state of the art stuff, the article usually > >> describes the calibration approach, and it's up to the reader to decide > >> if you did it adequately. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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.
