[time-nuts] 60 KHz Receiver

J. Forster jfor at quik.com
Tue Oct 5 00:20:48 EDT 2010


> a) broadcasts aren't legal for US hams
> b) ionospheric uncertainty in the skywave path makes this no better than
> WWV
> c) Whats wrong with GPS and/or WWV and/or CHU or whatever?
> d) A cheap Rb would give you a local reference that is much better than
> what you could do with receiving something via skywave.
>
> If you want something that isn't run by governments,and is a technical
> challenge, how about pulsars?   I'd guess (not having looked into it at
> all) that is would be cheaper to set up a station to receive pulsars
> than to run a Cs standard.

Pulsars take a big dish and they aren't all that good as a standard. A
friend of mine proved that at Aricebo years and years ago.

> While I fully sympathize with the "stand alone" approach (that's one of
> the appeals of HF comms in general.. you aren't depending on anyone
> else's infrastructure), I don't know that setting up a time standards
> station fits in with that..

I've vaguely heard that there are some new ham allocations in the works
below 500 KHz. How about setting up a beacon network that works like
LORAN, but at a different frequency. A simple downconverter could then
feed the signal into a LORAN receiver?

FWIW,

-John

==============






More information about the time-nuts mailing list