[time-nuts] The Case for eLoran & 9th Pulse Modulation Time Data

[Brooke Clarke]

Hi Poul:

Thanks for that insight on Loran-C in Europe.

Have you done any work on the new digital data format for Loran-C? 
There's a few U.S. stations now transmitting the digital data which 
includes the time and leap second correction bits. 
For more info on this technology see:
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/loran/9th-pulse-modulation-ldc.html
Too bad Middletown on 9940 is not sending the 9th pulse or I'd give a 
shot at decoding the time.

Have Fun,

Brooke Clarke

-- 
w/Java http://www.PRC68.com
w/o Java http://www.pacificsites.com/~brooke/PRC68COM.shtml
http://www.precisionclock.com




Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

>In message <4488A357.4060302 at pacific.net>, Brooke Clarke writes:
>
>  
>
>>The British have just published a document about the Enhanced LORAN-C 
>>system.
>>    
>>
>
>It's quite interesting times over here in Europe.
>
>Amongst people who know what they are talking about, there seems
>to be increasing awareness that pretty much all the foundations
>under Galileo has shifted for the worse.
>
>There are no users willing to pay for any of the services.
>
>Forcing them to pay by regulation or legislation will take 10-15
>years for ships/planes because the regulatory domains extend outside
>EU political reach.
>
>Road-pricing has not (yet) been a killer app anywhere, pretty much
>all politicians hope that oil-prices will do the job instead so they
>don't have to put their name behind a very unpopular idea.
>
>With the revenue-driven model of Galileo in distress, it is no
>surprise that the negotiations with private entities about operation
>has dragged out a couple of years, and "decisive developments in
>the negotiations" are not expected until later this year.
>
>Pulling countries like China into the Galileo group has many people
>uneasy, and seen strategically it can only count as a negative in
>the US/EU friction.  If USA didn't have incentives to develop
>countermeasures for Galileo before, the addition of China certainly
>provided them.
>
>On that account, the initially much trumpted jamming resistance of
>Galileo seems very much in doubt.  Did USA pull a smart one on EU
>in the modulation negotiations ?
>
>Some military personel suspect, strictly off the record, that the
>new US GPS birds have hardware to specifically jam Galileo, and to
>them the frequency co-location now seems very much like a major
>mistake.
>
>
>All in all, galileo looks increasingly like a a negotiation bluff
>which went horribly wrong and which will end up costing the EU
>taxpayers a fortune.
>
>Because nobody in power would ever be able to admit such a monumental
>blunder, and because the pure prestige of Europe also having a GNSS
>system would get a blow, were Galileo to be cancelled, it will not be.
>
>Also, the economy of the Arianne rocket would take a severe blow if
>the planned 7-9 A5 launches does not happen.
>
>But more and more politicians are starting to look for a way out, or
>at least trying to not rush in.
>
>
>In the meantime France in particular, and increasingly also England
>lobbies for Loran-C extension and expansion as a backup or "supplement".
>
>The funny thing here is that Loran-C deployment will not happen
>until the ratification of the "European Radio Navigation Plan"
>(which cover much more than just EU).
>
>The ERNP drafts warmly advocates Loran-C, citing from memory: 22%
>of benefit for 7% of money, is currently stalled because the European
>Commission is too busy, trying to save Galileo...
>
>So severe is the mumbling in the corridors that some even say that
>if we drown just a quarter as much money into Loran-C (or an entirely
>new VLF system) as is going to be the case for Galileo, we would
>get much better result.
>
>May you live in interesting times indeed...
>
>Poul-Henning
>
>  
>