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 <m...@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.
