Antonio wrote:

I suspect that it is not yet anywhere near probable -- more likely
there is now some remote possibility of a ressurection if many
difficult preconditions (including Congressional action) are all met.

Best regards,

Charles

John,

Following a suggestion of Paul Swed, I did test a similar approach.
But the 2000C is a rather complex receiver involving some phase code
issues. At the end, if I still remember it correctly, I had a
systematic phase jumping between two values and I never could
synchronize at any TOC to have my Time Of Day.

Best regards,
Antonio
CT1TE

Antonio Amandio Sanches de Magalhaes

Em 2012-03-04 18:43, J. Forster escreveu:

I was not suggesting it for TOD... but as a standard of time interval to
steer a local crystal. I've not looked at the 2000C in years, but does it
even put out TOD?

-John

=============

On 03/04/2012 10:02 PM, Charles P. Steinmetz wrote:

Rebuilding the network and finance the cost of running it will be a
challenge. This is why tearing down the old network was such a waste of
money. If they seriously considers it, maybe they have learned a hard
lesson and at least considers it and is ready to bite the bullet.

A key worry would be if they chose to use a non-compatible coding such
that existing Loran-C equipment needs to be scrapped anyway.

It would be interesting to see how it plays out.

Cheers,
Magnus

Sorry: the 2000C doesn't directly displays TOD.
What I wish I had was an UTC seconds tick for
epoch time determination.

Kind regards,
Antonio
CT1TE

Em 2012-03-04 21:08, J. Forster escreveu:

With today's electronics and 'puters, a new system could be designed to
operate essentially without local staffing, IMO. The biggest problem would
be getting antennas with reasonable radiation efficiency at 100 kHz,
without using 1000' plus towers.

One option might be more, smaller, cheaper stations.

-John

=============

Even with yesterday's electronics, many Loran stations outside the US
were operating under remote control, with a single control station
managing multiple chains.

--Glen

At 03:39 PM 3/4/2012, you wrote:

Neither does the 2100F, although it does put out an RS-232 message
1/second as I remember.

-John

=============

Hi

The gotcha with a non compatible coding is cross chain interference. My guess is that those who are currently running Loran-C would be a bit bothered if the "new" system nuked there ability to navigate any time skywave propigation was present. The current coding and repetition rates took a while to work out. It would be much easier to enhance the old US chain rates than to do something entirely new.

As I said before - this could indeed be wishful thinking on my part.  I have yet to see anything in print describing what the compelling reason for firing all this up actually is. Obviously the vendors want to sell gear, past that not very clear at all...

Bob

On Mar 4, 2012, at 4:34 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:

Look at it from a politician's point of view:

Would you really want to admit that your government screwed up and
destroyed a working, but old, system, and now you find you need it as a
backup to GPS?

Or, would you rather build a shiney, new, "state of the art" system, which
just happend to be compatible with legacy systems that many people have,
but offers "enhanced" bells and whistles?

Or, would you prefer to do nothing, although the problem is widely known,
and then be hung when a disaster strikes?

-John

==================