HP 117/10509a...
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
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@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@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
Maybe only 'favored' people are getting the inside information. It clearly
would give a commercial advantage.
-John
=================
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
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@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@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@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
As an observer from across the pond:
-
presumably, the vast majority of users would not be affected.
-
is there a technical solution which would be compatible with both old and
new methods? Some alternative modulation scheme? -
is there not a testing period, where results can be fed back as to the
compatibility or otherwise of the new scheme? -
has there been any official response to your comments that the new scheme
stops existing equipment working properly? -
can you involve your members of the legislature, or would the be either
inappropriate or a waste of time?
Cheers,
David
SatSignal Software - Quality software written to your requirements
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
Email: david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk
Hi
On Jul 8, 2012, at 1:17 AM, David J Taylor wrote:
As an observer from across the pond:
- presumably, the vast majority of users would not be affected.
Yes, the wall clock and wrist watch people (I use both) would not be impacted according to NIST. I have seen no reports of, and not observed any impact on my stuff.
- is there a technical solution which would be compatible with both old and new methods? Some alternative modulation scheme?
The whole format of the change has been under the guise of a government investment in a technology company. That's taken the whole debate about modulation formats out of the public eye. The goals of the new modulation scheme are a bit unclear, so it's difficult to evaluate alternatives. One would assume that the cost of silicon to demodulate the new format is a major part of the decision on the new approach. That said, yes there has to be another way to do this that does not nuke the old gear.
- is there not a testing period, where results can be fed back as to the compatibility or otherwise of the new scheme?
There have been tests. There is no official / formal feedback mechanism for the tests. It's not totally clear what any of the testing results are. One would guess that they are testing a silicon implementation of their receiver in the field. One would also guess that nothing "important" is impacted by the modulation.
- has there been any official response to your comments that the new scheme stops existing equipment working properly?
The response has been: Yes we know this breaks your stuff. They have put that in writing. There is a somewhat vague promise that a box that "translates" the new format to one the old gear can use could / would / might be developed. No idea at all what such a box would look like or cost. Also no idea how well it would perform.
- can you involve your members of the legislature, or would the be either inappropriate or a waste of time?
Based on past experience - waste of time, even in an election year. The subject is to hard to understand and not enough voters are impacted.
Cheers,
David
SatSignal Software - Quality software written to your requirements
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
Email: david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
To be very clear here.
There is not a box coming from NIST.
They do not want the responsibility to maintain what ever it would be.
The reason to make the change to the format is for better frequency and
time distribution by this channel.
It seeks to improve overall system gain and attempts to negate
interference from MSF at least in regions of the east.
Whats very interesting is that the silicon would in some way recover a
carrier to recover the data. If that carrier happened to be on a pin of
the chip then you might take advantage of this new method and it could
then be used perhaps to drive the old equipment. I certainly have no
problem with such an approach.
But suspect the rcvr will be multi-$$$$ and have to saythats not in the
ole budget.
Further
wwvb has not been a great way to distribute frequency for 20 years.
We time-nuts all have done far better with GPS. Granted no way to check
it against anything else.
So I simply do not understand the why of all of this. Not throwing
stones here.
Its just thats one big electric bill every month and there has to be a
bit more clever alternate national freq dist method that would be far
more economical and deliver better coverage and interference rejection.
Think about it, this new modulation method with say 5 transmitters at
lower power. Central site to control stability though at that point lots
of other approaches come into play. Oh thats LORAN C sorry.
Just very curious as to why the two approaches, especially since we also
know eloran is also being explored.
All of this is getting wayyyy off topic.
Regards
Paul
On 7/8/2012 6:50 AM, Bob Camp wrote:
Hi
On Jul 8, 2012, at 1:17 AM, David J Taylor wrote:
As an observer from across the pond:
- presumably, the vast majority of users would not be affected.
Yes, the wall clock and wrist watch people (I use both) would not be impacted according to NIST. I have seen no reports of, and not observed any impact on my stuff.
- is there a technical solution which would be compatible with both old and new methods? Some alternative modulation scheme?
The whole format of the change has been under the guise of a government investment in a technology company. That's taken the whole debate about modulation formats out of the public eye. The goals of the new modulation scheme are a bit unclear, so it's difficult to evaluate alternatives. One would assume that the cost of silicon to demodulate the new format is a major part of the decision on the new approach. That said, yes there has to be another way to do this that does not nuke the old gear.
- is there not a testing period, where results can be fed back as to the compatibility or otherwise of the new scheme?
There have been tests. There is no official / formal feedback mechanism for the tests. It's not totally clear what any of the testing results are. One would guess that they are testing a silicon implementation of their receiver in the field. One would also guess that nothing "important" is impacted by the modulation.
- has there been any official response to your comments that the new scheme stops existing equipment working properly?
The response has been: Yes we know this breaks your stuff. They have put that in writing. There is a somewhat vague promise that a box that "translates" the new format to one the old gear can use could / would / might be developed. No idea at all what such a box would look like or cost. Also no idea how well it would perform.
- can you involve your members of the legislature, or would the be either inappropriate or a waste of time?
Based on past experience - waste of time, even in an election year. The subject is to hard to understand and not enough voters are impacted.
Cheers,
David
SatSignal Software - Quality software written to your requirements
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
Email: david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@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@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
Hi
I'd bet at least a cold order of fries that what ever chip comes out of this is going to be a cheap one. At least that will be true after a couple years. The target market is wall clocks…
Bob
On Jul 8, 2012, at 10:29 AM, paul wrote:
To be very clear here.
There is not a box coming from NIST.
They do not want the responsibility to maintain what ever it would be.
The reason to make the change to the format is for better frequency and time distribution by this channel.
It seeks to improve overall system gain and attempts to negate interference from MSF at least in regions of the east.
Whats very interesting is that the silicon would in some way recover a carrier to recover the data. If that carrier happened to be on a pin of the chip then you might take advantage of this new method and it could then be used perhaps to drive the old equipment. I certainly have no problem with such an approach.
But suspect the rcvr will be multi-$$$$ and have to saythats not in the ole budget.
Further
wwvb has not been a great way to distribute frequency for 20 years.
We time-nuts all have done far better with GPS. Granted no way to check it against anything else.
So I simply do not understand the why of all of this. Not throwing stones here.
Its just thats one big electric bill every month and there has to be a bit more clever alternate national freq dist method that would be far more economical and deliver better coverage and interference rejection.
Think about it, this new modulation method with say 5 transmitters at lower power. Central site to control stability though at that point lots of other approaches come into play. Oh thats LORAN C sorry.
Just very curious as to why the two approaches, especially since we also know eloran is also being explored.
All of this is getting wayyyy off topic.
Regards
Paul
On 7/8/2012 6:50 AM, Bob Camp wrote:
Hi
On Jul 8, 2012, at 1:17 AM, David J Taylor wrote:
As an observer from across the pond:
- presumably, the vast majority of users would not be affected.
Yes, the wall clock and wrist watch people (I use both) would not be impacted according to NIST. I have seen no reports of, and not observed any impact on my stuff.
- is there a technical solution which would be compatible with both old and new methods? Some alternative modulation scheme?
The whole format of the change has been under the guise of a government investment in a technology company. That's taken the whole debate about modulation formats out of the public eye. The goals of the new modulation scheme are a bit unclear, so it's difficult to evaluate alternatives. One would assume that the cost of silicon to demodulate the new format is a major part of the decision on the new approach. That said, yes there has to be another way to do this that does not nuke the old gear.
- is there not a testing period, where results can be fed back as to the compatibility or otherwise of the new scheme?
There have been tests. There is no official / formal feedback mechanism for the tests. It's not totally clear what any of the testing results are. One would guess that they are testing a silicon implementation of their receiver in the field. One would also guess that nothing "important" is impacted by the modulation.
- has there been any official response to your comments that the new scheme stops existing equipment working properly?
The response has been: Yes we know this breaks your stuff. They have put that in writing. There is a somewhat vague promise that a box that "translates" the new format to one the old gear can use could / would / might be developed. No idea at all what such a box would look like or cost. Also no idea how well it would perform.
- can you involve your members of the legislature, or would the be either inappropriate or a waste of time?
Based on past experience - waste of time, even in an election year. The subject is to hard to understand and not enough voters are impacted.
Cheers,
David
SatSignal Software - Quality software written to your requirements
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
Email: david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@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@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@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
IMO, a better way to provide the service would be to just turn a couple of
LORAN-C stations back on.
But that would be a tacit admission of another stupid government screwup.
This WWVB scheme can possibly be spun as an 'improvement'- hence
politically less distasteful, even if more expensive for the users.
YMMV.
,
-John
================
To be very clear here.
There is not a box coming from NIST.
They do not want the responsibility to maintain what ever it would be.
The reason to make the change to the format is for better frequency and
time distribution by this channel.
It seeks to improve overall system gain and attempts to negate
interference from MSF at least in regions of the east.
Whats very interesting is that the silicon would in some way recover a
carrier to recover the data. If that carrier happened to be on a pin of
the chip then you might take advantage of this new method and it could
then be used perhaps to drive the old equipment. I certainly have no
problem with such an approach.
But suspect the rcvr will be multi-$$$$ and have to saythats not in the
ole budget.
Further
wwvb has not been a great way to distribute frequency for 20 years.
We time-nuts all have done far better with GPS. Granted no way to check
it against anything else.
So I simply do not understand the why of all of this. Not throwing
stones here.
Its just thats one big electric bill every month and there has to be a
bit more clever alternate national freq dist method that would be far
more economical and deliver better coverage and interference rejection.
Think about it, this new modulation method with say 5 transmitters at
lower power. Central site to control stability though at that point lots
of other approaches come into play. Oh thats LORAN C sorry.
Just very curious as to why the two approaches, especially since we also
know eloran is also being explored.
All of this is getting wayyyy off topic.
Regards
Paul
On 7/8/2012 6:50 AM, Bob Camp wrote:
Hi
On Jul 8, 2012, at 1:17 AM, David J Taylor wrote:
As an observer from across the pond:
- presumably, the vast majority of users would not be affected.
Yes, the wall clock and wrist watch people (I use both) would not be
impacted according to NIST. I have seen no reports of, and not observed
any impact on my stuff.
- is there a technical solution which would be compatible with both old
and new methods? Some alternative modulation scheme?
The whole format of the change has been under the guise of a government
investment in a technology company. That's taken the whole debate about
modulation formats out of the public eye. The goals of the new
modulation scheme are a bit unclear, so it's difficult to evaluate
alternatives. One would assume that the cost of silicon to demodulate
the new format is a major part of the decision on the new approach. That
said, yes there has to be another way to do this that does not nuke the
old gear.
- is there not a testing period, where results can be fed back as to
the compatibility or otherwise of the new scheme?
There have been tests. There is no official / formal feedback mechanism
for the tests. It's not totally clear what any of the testing results
are. One would guess that they are testing a silicon implementation of
their receiver in the field. One would also guess that nothing
"important" is impacted by the modulation.
- has there been any official response to your comments that the new
scheme stops existing equipment working properly?
The response has been: Yes we know this breaks your stuff. They have put
that in writing. There is a somewhat vague promise that a box that
"translates" the new format to one the old gear can use could / would /
might be developed. No idea at all what such a box would look like or
cost. Also no idea how well it would perform.
- can you involve your members of the legislature, or would the be
either inappropriate or a waste of time?
Based on past experience - waste of time, even in an election year. The
subject is to hard to understand and not enough voters are impacted.
Cheers,
David
SatSignal Software - Quality software written to your requirements
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
Email: david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@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@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@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.