[time-nuts] Loran C returning to a station near you...

Bob Camp kb8tq at n1k.org
Thu Jul 16 06:55:42 EDT 2015


Hi

I think the WWVB PM stuff is relevant to Loran in the US. We have (pretty much) the most
involved group of “customers” for that signal here on the list. As far as I have seen, the only
project that has gone past the talk stage is the converter to drive the old(er) WWVB gear. 
Even with our level of interest, there are no working decoder projects out there. We may not
be the main target audience, but we are the ones most likely to toss together a home built
receiver. 

Dropping something like Loran into an already working system faces the same sort of 
barriers. If the system is working (now) - why bother? If it’s not working, do the minimum 
cost (time / risk / labor) fix for the issue. Explaining to the boss why the (say) 5X higher cost
solution is the one you picked is not going to get very far. Giving the same explanation to 
grandmother (when her bill goes up)  is going to be a bit harder still. 

I would not be surprised if the number of GPS equipped devices US exceeded the population by
some signifiant factor. They get used. The total population of Loran gear that was in use (not in 
storage, not in a rack powered down) in the US in 2000 probably would fit in my garage. The market
speaks…..

Bob

> On Jul 15, 2015, at 10:33 PM, Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis at SystematicSw.ab.ca> wrote:
> 
> Look at how well a couple of projects have gone:
> 
> o  privatize NIST NTP server operation - the NTP pool is recommended everywhere
> and good enough for most; separate providers supply high accuracy, precision,
> and stability timing for financial markets internationally; and GPS serves the rest
> 
> o  provide WWVB PM decoders - older precision timing equipment no longer works; but
> compatibility for RC "Atomic" clocks and watches was maintained; does not appear
> that there is any commercial interest in developing decoders; the new PM features
> might as well be dropped, or they could go back to the old AM format.
> 
> See also the UT1 NTP service http://www.nist.gov/pml/div688/grp40/ut1_ntp_description.cfm
> which states it will use IERS schedule A data, and may offer only the weekly official
> projections rather than the daily rapid predictions, which vary by 0.1ms; they also
> mention providing DUT1 and EOP data as a text string from a separate service.
> They may be looking at this for a UTC like backup if the ITU drops the leapsecond.
> 
> But the US, EU, Russia, China, and Japan can each afford a GNSS constellation,
> with upgraded features as desired.
> If a country can not provide an adequate market for products, then they will have to
> either do without a backup, ormake do with what markets elsewhere demand - eLoran.
> 
> OTOH the civil business focus of currently successful projects leads me to hope that the
> ITU will be told to leave UTC alone as a legal and political requirement for solar civil
> time, use TAI or GPS time if they want to keep to a uniform time scale, or come up with
> a better time scale of their own.
> 
> -- 
> Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis
> 
> 
> On 2015-07-14 16:49, Bob Camp wrote:
>> Not to be to much of a downer here but …..
>> 
>> Loran for timing and an “Eastern WWVB” are two projects that seem to each have a
>> life of their own. They seem to come up on some sort of cycle related to sun spots.
>> Both have zero (or possibly less than that) percent mind share among those who
>> would need to implement them into systems. Since there is major cost on the systems
>> end, it would take “mandatory use” legislation to get them designed in. Without those
>> design in’s, *having* a backup system is pretty useless. You are talking about billions of
>> dollars and years of effort to hook them up ….
>> 
>> If you are talking about “infinite budget” military systems, some of that may happen. I
>> notice in the papers that “infinite budget” does not seem to apply to the US DOD these
>> days. For commercial systems, nobody will significantly cut into profits to do something like this.
>> 
>> Should they do this - sure. Will they do it - nope.
> 
>>> On Jul 14, 2015, at 4:49 PM, paul swed <paulswedb at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> The reason to stay with the LORAN C style pulses is very very simple. It
>>> allows our time-nuts Austrons and SRS to work. Its the only way I get any
>>> of my tax dollars back. :-)
>>> The good news is no official government person reads time-nuts.
> 
>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk at phk.freebsd.dk>
>>> wrote:
> 
>>>> In message <55A4AC81.1030100 at rubidium.dyndns.org>, Magnus Danielson
>>>> writes:
>>>>> The safety is
>>>>> relative, in that it takes quite a bit of more infrastructure compared
>>>>> to the jamming of GPS, and that lies in the wavelength of the signal
>>>>> than anything else.
>>>> 
>>>> If the goal is a reliable backup for GPS, there are smarter ways to
>>>> use the 100kHz band than Loran-C pulses, and there really isn't much
>>>> reason to stay compatible with Loran-C receivers.
> _______________________________________________
> 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