[time-nuts] 60 KHz Receiver

[Bob Camp]

Hi

The bandwidth of anything close to a Loran signal is a *lot* wider than any of the ham bands contemplated below 1 MHz.

There's the minor issue of getting the power company to put in a cable to the house for your 1 Mw (capital M not lower case M) transmitter.

Even though it's pule, the RF power is way beyond the sub 1 W outputs currently contemplated on those bands. Signal to noise *does* matter.

Bob

On Oct 5, 2010, at 12:20 AM, J. Forster wrote:

>> 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
> 
> ==============
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>