[time-nuts] WWVB Response

Peter Monta pmonta at gmail.com
Thu Sep 27 05:52:35 UTC 2012


Hi John,

Thank you for clarifying the openness of the transmission format.
Could I ask whether there is any scenario under which aspects of the
signal transmission design might be patented?  If companies or
individuals wish to patent aspects of receiver design, that's fine,
but I'd be uncomfortable with a patent-encumbered transmission format.

> ... It is an unfortunate consequence of improving the reception
> capability of our broadcast that this segment of our loyal user base are so
> adversely affected.  The decision to proceed was not taken lightly, but in
> the end it was decided that the improvement in reception capability
> (especially along the JJY interference prone East Coast) outweighed the loss
> of use of existing PLL devices.

I suppose it's a matter of balancing the value of the PLL receivers
and the loss of BPSK signal power to the residual carrier.  If the
power loss is small, though, say 0.5 dB or below, then given the large
process gains of the advanced receivers, it might be worth
considering.  I don't imagine that the mere presence of residual
carrier has any effect on the advanced receivers (since it is similar
to interference from MSF and JJY, as you say), but please correct me
if I'm wrong.

Cheers,
Peter




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