[time-nuts] Loran transmitters back on the air.

Dennis Ferguson dennis.c.ferguson at gmail.com
Fri Mar 2 03:31:09 UTC 2012


The publication in the federal register, here

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-01-11/html/2012-307.htm

says they are playing with more than Loran.  There are
several MF bands they are playing with as well, in particular
the dGPS bands and 500 kHz.

I noticed a while ago that UrsaNav's UN-151 receiver was advertised
as being "capable of processing multiple signals in the LF and MF bands",
and wondered what the "MF" part was about.  That is a bit clearer now.

Dennis Ferguson

On 1 Mar, 2012, at 21:04 , paul swed wrote:

> Hmmm did find a paper that suggests various goals and such and the old
> loran gear might not work. Depends on what modes they try.
> Would be great to find some form of updated news.
> Regards
> Paul.
> 
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 8:25 PM, paul swed <paulswedb at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Eloran is compatible with the older timing rcvrs. Or at least it was
>> supposed to be. Now the message suggests that they will try other
>> modulation modes. I couldn't find anything really further then what was
>> sent.
>> I did hook the longwire directly to the austron so far no lock and I am
>> less then 70 miles from the Nantucket site.
>> Will keep trying
>> Regards
>> Paul
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Bob Camp <lists at rtty.us> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> The obvious advantage to backwards compatibility would be much greater
>>> coverage area. It is a bit tough to envision them getting a reasonable user
>>> population with a 100% from scratch approach. Indeed that may be wishful
>>> thinking.
>>> 
>>> Bob
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mar 1, 2012, at 8:09 PM, "Charles P. Steinmetz" <
>>> charles_steinmetz at lavabit.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Greg wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> A friend in Texas has confirmed that Loran signals are now up and
>>> receivers are showing position. I am including a note from UrsaNav
>>> regarding this event.
>>>> 
>>>> What are the odds that any long-term deployment would be
>>> backward-compatible with legacy Loran receivers (not the same as the
>>> initial tests being backward-compatible)?  The primary revenue stream would
>>> appear to be from sales of new receivers that use patented technology
>>> (unless the government wants to get back into the business of subsidizing
>>> Loran, which it just vacated -- not very likely).  Cynical, maybe, but it
>>> is always a good idea to keep an eye on the money.  I suppose they could
>>> make the enhancements transparent to legacy receivers, so you would buy new
>>> receivers if you needed the enhancements but could also use older receivers
>>> if you didn't.  But would they?  There does not appear to be an incentive
>>> to do so, absent a government subsidy.
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Charles
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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 mailing list