[time-nuts] improved WWVB signal being planned?

Magnus Danielson magnus at rubidium.dyndns.org
Tue Mar 29 18:30:39 UTC 2011


On 03/29/2011 04:14 AM, tcxo wrote:
> I'm concerned that, in their quest to address the needs of the general
> public's radio clocks, NIST might overlook the frequency standards needs of
> our metrology community. (Unless the metrology community provides adequate
> feedback to NIST *before* it might be too late?)
>
> According to their interpretations of ISO/IEC 17025, many customers require
> metrology labs to include inter-comparison procedures for assurance. For
> example, they might require a GPS disciplined house frequency standard to be
> cross-checked against another non-GPS frequency standard (for assurance
> purposes). In the past Loran-C served this need well as the alternate source
> of traceable frequency. But with the demise of Loran-C, WWVB has become more
> important for this purpose. Yes, we know that GPS out-performs WWVB for
> frequency; but within a stated uncertainty (that's adequate for many
> purposes), WWVB still supplies the alternate source of traceable frequency
> comparison.
>
> Do any of the resident gurus of this list have opinions as to whether or not
> NIST's proposals might exclude WWVB as a source of traceable frequency
> comparisons?

Adding a phase-modulation will, if done with care, have no significant 
impact on receivers not capable of utilizing the modulation. Modulation 
capable receiver should however be of interest, but I wonder if anyone 
would make one commercially.

All of a sudden GLONASS receiver seems attractive.

Cheers,
Magnus




More information about the Time-nuts_lists.febo.com mailing list