[time-nuts] WWVB Now a Monopoly

paul swed paulswedb at gmail.com
Fri Sep 28 13:11:51 UTC 2012


I think it died pretty quickly from all of the stuff I had seen at hamfests.
Thats how I picked up my 6 X lucent RBs for nothing pretty much. Also my
180 watt rf amplifier.
Regards
Paul

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 1:38 AM, <bg at lysator.liu.se> wrote:

> Dont you have GPS/Cs locked cell networks anymore in the US?
>
> http://www.endruntechnologies.com/cdma.htm
>
> --
>
>     Björn
>
> > In the real world, if GPS does not work, the WWVB change means you either
> > have to buy the XW stuff or go do something else.
> >
> > YMMV
> >
> > -John
> >
> > =================
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 9/26/12 7:11 PM, J. Forster wrote:
> >>> But if someone here designed and built a $100 receiver and offered it
> >>> to
> >>> the group, that could well violate some of their IP.
> >>>
> >>> As to building a home brew receiver and certifying a onsie so your
> >>> lab's
> >>> cal is traceable, I'd certainly not trust a cal done that way.
> >>>
> >>> Doing spacecraft communications is hardly the same thing.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Well..if you're trying to do NIST traceable cals in a legally acceptable
> >> way, then it's very unlikely that any homebuilt receiver that infringed
> >> the patent would be acceptable, from a patent standpoint. The general
> >> exemption to practice the invention is for development of a new
> >> invention, not to make use of it for other reasons (otherwise, the
> >> patent wouldn't be particularly useful in terms of exclusivity).
> >>
> >> OTOH, if you cobble up a (non-infringing) receiver and validate its
> >> performance analytically, why wouldn't that be acceptable for a
> >> traceable calibration.  It's no different than using a homebuilt quartz
> >> oscillator as a transfer standard, is it?
> >>
> >> Now, if you're selling calibration services, it would be a tougher sell
> >> to your customers: they'd have to believe in your analysis or oscillator
> >> building. This is in the sense that if I use a HP 105, the long history
> >> and tradition of HP is essentially standing behind the design and the
> >> published performance standards; a homebuilt standard has a higher bar
> >> for the great unwashed public.
> >>
> >> If you want traceability for, say, a journal article, then I think the
> >> bar is set differently.  For state of the art stuff, the article usually
> >> describes the calibration approach, and it's up to the reader to decide
> >> if you did it adequately.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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.
>



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