[time-nuts] improved WWVB signal being planned?

[J. Forster]

They could just have turned it back on as a LORAN transmitter. No
position, just timing.

But that's not the way the "government" works. If it works, break it.

YMMV,

-John

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


> Hard to say if anything will happen. Read the article and it appears nist
> actually had the money to revamp one of the old LORAN C or other
> transmitting facilities on the East Coast to setup on a new frequency a
> WWVB
> like station. They couldn't figure out what to do so had to return the
> money. Not sure what I can say to that. At least not on this thread. Hmmm
> Concerns down in Washington on rf effects blah blah blah. Nantucket seems
> to
> be way out of the way last I heard it was idle.
> Oh well not much more to be said in that respect.
> Regards
> Paul
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:14 PM, tcxo <gbusg at comcast.net> 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?
>>
>> At least, I think it prudent that some of us let NIST know that we're
>> still
>> relying on WWVB for traceable frequency comparison systems.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "beale" <beale at bealecorner.com>
>> To: <time-nuts at febo.com>
>> Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 3:02 PM
>> Subject: [time-nuts] improved WWVB signal being planned?
>>
>>
>> I thought this was interesting... I don't know if this had been already
>> mentioned here- probably some list members are already part of the
>> process!
>> I wonder if this would be a spread-spectrum code like the GPS signal?
>>
>> "[...] Another idea being actively investigated is to add phase
>> modulation
>> to the existing WWVB signal while leaving the AM BCD code intact. This
>> would
>> allow all existing devices to continue to work, but allow a new
>> generation
>> of radio-controlled clocks to be developed.  These new devices would
>> have
>> greater processing gain and therefore be capable of reading the time
>> code
>> with a lower signal-to-noise ratio."
>>
>> from  "We Help Move Time Through the Air
>> Managers of WWVB Explore Options to Improve the Service Further"
>> by John Lowe, manager of NIST radio stations WWV/WWVH/WWVB.
>> http://tf.boulder.nist.gov/general/pdf/2504.pdf
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>