[time-nuts] HP 117/10509a...

[paul]

To be very clear here.
There is not a box coming from NIST.
They do not want the responsibility to maintain what ever it would be.

The reason to make the change to the format is for better frequency and 
time distribution by this channel.
It seeks to improve overall system gain and attempts to negate 
interference from MSF at least in regions of the east.

Whats very interesting is that the silicon would in some way recover a 
carrier to recover the data. If that carrier happened to be on a pin of 
the chip then you might take advantage of this new method and it could 
then be used perhaps to drive the old equipment. I certainly have no 
problem with such an approach.

But suspect the rcvr will be multi-$$$$ and have to saythats not in the 
ole budget.

Further
wwvb has not been a great way to distribute frequency for 20 years.
We time-nuts all have done far better with GPS. Granted no way to check 
it against anything else.
So I simply do not understand the why of all of this. Not throwing 
stones here.
Its just thats one big electric bill every month and there has to be a 
bit more clever alternate national freq dist method that would be far 
more economical and deliver better coverage and interference rejection.
Think about it, this new modulation method with say 5 transmitters at 
lower power. Central site to control stability though at that point lots 
of other approaches come into play. Oh thats LORAN C sorry.

Just very curious as to why the two approaches, especially since we also 
know eloran is also being explored.

All of this is getting wayyyy off topic.
Regards
Paul


On 7/8/2012 6:50 AM, Bob Camp wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> On Jul 8, 2012, at 1:17 AM, David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> As an observer from across the pond:
>>
>> - presumably, the vast majority of users would not be affected.
> Yes, the wall clock and wrist watch people (I use both) would not be impacted according to NIST. I have seen no reports of, and not observed any impact on my stuff.
>
>> - is there a technical solution which would be compatible with both old and new methods?  Some alternative modulation scheme?
> The whole format of the change has been under the guise of a government investment in a technology company. That's taken the whole debate about modulation formats out of the public eye. The goals of the new modulation scheme are a bit unclear, so it's difficult to evaluate alternatives. One would *assume* that the cost of silicon to demodulate the new format is a major part of the decision on the new approach. That said, yes there has to be another way to do this that does not nuke the old gear.
>
>> - is there not a testing period, where results can be fed back as to the compatibility or otherwise of the new scheme?
> There have been tests. There is no official / formal feedback mechanism for the tests. It's not totally clear what any of the testing results are. One would *guess* that they are testing a silicon implementation of their receiver in the field. One would also *guess* that nothing "important" is impacted by the modulation.
>
>> - has there been any official response to your comments that the new scheme stops existing equipment working properly?
> The response has been: Yes we know this breaks your stuff. They have put that in writing. There is a somewhat vague promise that a box that "translates" the new format to one the old gear can use could / would / might be developed. No idea at all what such a box would look like or cost. Also no idea how well it would perform.
>   
>> - can you involve your members of the legislature, or would the be either inappropriate or a waste of time?
> Based on past experience - waste of time, even in an election year. The subject is to hard to understand and not enough voters are impacted.
>
>> Cheers,
>> David
>> -- 
>> SatSignal Software - Quality software written to your requirements
>> Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
>> Email: david-taylor at blueyonder.co.uk
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.