On 07/07/2012 04:10 AM, Chris Albertson wrote:
There is a profesional standard for clock distribution for computer audio
interfaces. They call it a Word Clock and it is usually distributed over
75 ohm coax cable. It is common for a studio to have a master word clock
generator and to use audio
Hi Don --
The problem with the Clock-Block is that it can't generate exactly the
correct frequency in this case -- the closest it can get is several PPM
off. And, I'm not sure the phase noise/jitter from the Clock-Block is
good enough.
I don't know whether you could program a PIC to
On 07/07/2012 03:10 PM, John Ackermann N8UR wrote:
Hi Don --
The problem with the Clock-Block is that it can't generate exactly the
correct frequency in this case -- the closest it can get is several PPM
off. And, I'm not sure the phase noise/jitter from the Clock-Block is
good enough.
I don't
Good: I'll modify my VHDL to include this. The last will be the 50% duty
cycle divide-by-3 so that a 48KHz or 96KHz will be available.
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Magnus Danielson mag...@rubidium.dyndns.org
wrote:
On 07/07/2012 03:10 PM, John Ackermann N8UR wrote:
Hi Don --
The problem
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Don Latham d...@montana.com wrote:
Foe word rate generation from 10 MHz, perhaps the TAPR devices:
http://www.tapr.org/kits_clock-block.html
or:
http://www.tapr.org/kits_tadd-2.html
with a type D f/f to get a square wave?
generate your clock for cheap.
Pretty sure NIST will not do anything. Just to set expectations.
We are fortunate that to some extent John Lowe is responding to questions.
But we are on our own.
I think the big lesson I have already learned is that there are lots of
standard approaches to solving the problem Micros FPGAs dpll
Pretty sure NIST will not do anything. Just to set expectations.
We are fortunate that to some extent John Lowe is responding to questions.
But we are on our own.
I think the big lesson I have already learned is that there are lots of
standard approaches to solving the problem Micros FPGAs dpll
- Original Message -
From: paul swed paulsw...@gmail.com
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
time-nuts@febo.com
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] HP 117/10509a...
Pretty sure NIST will not do anything. Just to set expectations.
We
Sorry for the semi repost.
My have a email issue going on.
As mentioned on the wwvb thread receivers will not work.
Am looking for inexpensive spectracoms (Flea market level) to use for
testing and am indeed trying like heck top create a answer.
So do want to be able to test at least one of these.
Not a peep. They may still be testing but I needed to use the feedline for
the new 10ft loop for wwvb. Need to get loran cooking again.
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Tom Miller tmil...@skylinenet.net wrote:
- Original Message - From: paul swed paulsw...@gmail.com
To: Discussion of
Hi
It *may* turn out to be easier to receive and demodulate the new signal, then
use it to de-bpsk the signal to an older box than to try to strip the bpsk. I
agree that they may not change anything, but I'd hate to get it all running and
have them make a change.
Bob
On Jul 7, 2012, at 11:30
On 06/ 5/12 12:26 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 05/06/12 00:30, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
This is not exactly a time related question, but I'm sure the subject
must be of interest to time-nuts using GPS.
If one transmits from an antenna such as a helical one, RHCP, can the
same antenna be used
Why bother?
If you have to build/buy a new receiver to make your old receiver work,
why not just use the new receiver?
YMMV,
-John
===
Hi
It *may* turn out to be easier to receive and demodulate the new signal,
then use it to de-bpsk the signal to an older box than to try to
On 07/07/2012 06:21 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
On 06/ 5/12 12:26 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 05/06/12 00:30, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
This is not exactly a time related question, but I'm sure the subject
must be of interest to time-nuts using GPS.
If one transmits from an antenna such as a
On 07/ 7/12 05:43 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 07/07/2012 06:21 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
I can confirm that I'm 100% sure that the polarization of the two
antennas needs to be the same - i.e. both RHCP or both LHCP. I built two
of them for RHCP, and got appreciate gain.
Despite what
On 7/7/12 9:21 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
I can confirm that I'm 100% sure that the polarization of the two
antennas needs to be the same - i.e. both RHCP or both LHCP. I built two
of them for RHCP, and got appreciate gain.
Despite what other may say, there does seem to be a lot of confusion
Hi
… because some want to keep the old stuff going. It's a hobby.
Indeed my interest would mainly be in simply building a new (cheap) receiver.
Bob
On Jul 7, 2012, at 12:22 PM, J. Forster wrote:
Why bother?
If you have to build/buy a new receiver to make your old receiver work,
why not
Thanks for clearing up any confusion Magnus, one more question, are the any
conditions such as reflected signals that can reverse polarization?
Thomas Knox
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2012 18:43:10 +0200
From: mag...@rubidium.dyndns.org
To: time-nuts@febo.com
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Antenna
Exactly. Reflections reverse the cp sense
On Jul 7, 2012, at 11:40, Tom Knox act...@hotmail.com wrote:
Thanks for clearing up any confusion Magnus, one more question, are the any
conditions such as reflected signals that can reverse polarization?
Thomas Knox
On 07/07/2012 08:49 PM, Jim Lux wrote:
Exactly. Reflections reverse the cp sense
On Jul 7, 2012, at 11:40, Tom Knoxact...@hotmail.com wrote:
Thanks for clearing up any confusion Magnus, one more question, are the any
conditions such as reflected signals that can reverse polarization?
John I am with Bob on this. Its to keep the gear ticking and an alternate
to GPS (Sort of). But there is a huge difference between this and LORAN C.
Here there is an opportunity to evolve as compared to LORAN that was simply
killed.
Further maybe even obtain better performance. But thats far from
John I am with Bob on this. Its to keep the gear ticking and an alternate
to GPS (Sort of).
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.
But there is a huge difference between this and LORAN C.
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
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
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
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
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
We need a better idea what the goal is. If it's to sample and digitize data
at a specific time you may need to roll your own but if it's to figure out
the time of an event or to look at spectral info a mid price premium
soundcard like the Juli@ should be more than adequate. Knowing when in a
28 matches
Mail list logo
