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

[Bob Camp]

Hi

… and because the documentation is sketchy, there just *may* be an "oh, by the way, we didn't mention it earlier but the new modulation includes ….." sort of thing.

Bob

On Jul 7, 2012, at 7:53 PM, paul swed wrote:

> Oh my now you are about to get me going but yes indeed.
> We are paying for the services and yet a new scheme comes out with
> documentation thats a bit sketchy in areas as I dug in. Some of its obvious
> on the second or 3rd read but you are still reading between the lines.
> However there does seem to be a company that will make $ off of the silicon
> they will develop.
> Kind of seems out of line.
> Regards
> Paul.
> 
> On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Majdi S. Abbas <msa at latt.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, Jul 07, 2012 at 02:23:56PM -0700, J. Forster wrote:
>>> I agree with that objective, but, I have seen peoplwe take BC-611 radios
>>> and put cheap CB into the box. That interests me not in the slightest.
>> 
>> John,
>> 
>>        Depends.
>> 
>>        For time of day receivers, a retrofit makes a lot of sense.
>> Otherwise you need to deal with providing your own serial, IRIG,
>> display, etc. outputs.
>> 
>>        I'm not sure I want to reimplement all that if I can pass
>> the time code through and synthesize the modulation.
>> 
>>        At least in the short term.  Long term, you want to develop
>> the whole thing, but this will get receivers working until that
>> can happen.
>> 
>>        [Warning: More whining below.  :) ]
>> 
>>> I agree the LORAN-C shutdown was idiotic, but NIST is essentially
>>> obsoleting all phase tracking receivers by going to BPSK. IMO, it is
>>> essentially like the change from LORAN-A to LORAN-C, except that it will
>>> happen at some defined date/time rather than over the years.
>> 
>>        No, and that's my biggest problem.  There /isn't/ a defined
>> date/time.  We got a week long experiment, then a month long experiment,
>> then "sometime in July or August this becomes permanent."
>> 
>>        If there had actually been a published timeline, as well as
>> a published specification for the new modulation, so that we had
>> time to work on this in advance, I'd really have no objection.
>> 
>>        But there are still no docs and we still have no date -- the
>> best we can tell is, the change will happen before there is any
>> additional documentation besides the PTTI paper.
>> 
>>        Supposedly this is because they are still testing, but who
>> rolls out a change to a production service without knowing what it
>> is until the last minute?
>> 
>>        Here, a lot of people received their notification from
>> vendors like Spectracom -- why is a vendor notifying me of changes
>> to a government service?  Shouldn't NIST do that themselves?  Why
>> not a published announcement on the WWVB website?  (Not just the
>> testing announcements, but a real notification that a permanent
>> change is pending and what it's going to look like.)
>> 
>>        Shoot, why not announcements on WWV/H?  There's probably a
>> fair bit of overlap in terms of people that use both.
>> 
>>        After the loss of LORAN, losing the only backup we have,
>> without a defined timeframe, and with no ability to develop a
>> receiver in advance, is really pretty bad.  Even USCG gave us
>> some notice.
>> 
>>        --msa
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.