Hi > On Jul 14, 2015, at 12:35 PM, Magnus Danielson <mag...@rubidium.dyndns.org> > wrote: > > Poul-Henning, > > On 07/14/2015 06:16 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> -------- >> In message <55a4ac81.1030...@rubidium.dyndns.org>, Magnus Danielson writes: >> >>> The safety is >>> relative, in that it takes quite a bit of more infrastructure compared >>> to the jamming of GPS, and that lies in the wavelength of the signal >>> than anything else. >> >> If the goal is a reliable backup for GPS, there are smarter ways to >> use the 100kHz band than Loran-C pulses, and there really isn't much >> reason to stay compatible with Loran-C receivers. >> > > True. I would look at PRN-codes if I where to do such a system today. > What may be an issue is the amount of sidebands allowed, as it would put > limits on the chipping-rate of PRN-codes or for that matter other forms of > modulations.
If you look at the spectral width of the existing Loran-C (or similar) waveform, it’s a massive thing. You would have a hard time coming up with something that spreads more crud around the VLF range. Bob > > I think another approach was being considered for the LORAN-rebuild in the > US. I don't remember from the top of my head when it was discussed or link to > the article. > > Cheers, > Magnus > _______________________________________________ > 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.
