"There's the minor issue of getting the power company to put in a cable to the house for your 1 Mw (capital M not lower case M) transmitter."
I can't resist citing a personal anecdote regarding power distribution. A few years back, I was working on a proposal for a high power (1MW) power supply system. Our building currently has about 750kW service, so I asked the facility engineer to call the power company to find out how much it would cost and how long it would take to get another MW in our building. He called me back quickly. He was told that because he called after 2PM, they could not do it that day and the soonest we could have it would be the next day. He was laughing so much, he never got to ask how much it would cost... Didier Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: Bob Camp <li...@rtty.us> Sender: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 06:34:29 To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement<time-nuts@febo.com> Reply-To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement <time-nuts@febo.com> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] 60 KHz Receiver Hi The bandwidth of anything close to a Loran signal is a *lot* wider than any of the ham bands contemplated below 1 MHz. There's the minor issue of getting the power company to put in a cable to the house for your 1 Mw (capital M not lower case M) transmitter. Even though it's pule, the RF power is way beyond the sub 1 W outputs currently contemplated on those bands. Signal to noise *does* matter. Bob On Oct 5, 2010, at 12:20 AM, J. Forster wrote: >> a) broadcasts aren't legal for US hams >> b) ionospheric uncertainty in the skywave path makes this no better than >> WWV >> c) Whats wrong with GPS and/or WWV and/or CHU or whatever? >> d) A cheap Rb would give you a local reference that is much better than >> what you could do with receiving something via skywave. >> >> If you want something that isn't run by governments,and is a technical >> challenge, how about pulsars? I'd guess (not having looked into it at >> all) that is would be cheaper to set up a station to receive pulsars >> than to run a Cs standard. > > Pulsars take a big dish and they aren't all that good as a standard. A > friend of mine proved that at Aricebo years and years ago. > >> While I fully sympathize with the "stand alone" approach (that's one of >> the appeals of HF comms in general.. you aren't depending on anyone >> else's infrastructure), I don't know that setting up a time standards >> station fits in with that.. > > I've vaguely heard that there are some new ham allocations in the works > below 500 KHz. How about setting up a beacon network that works like > LORAN, but at a different frequency. A simple downconverter could then > feed the signal into a LORAN receiver? > > FWIW, > > -John > > ============== > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.