Hi I don't have a problem with going after a known format. What I have been worried about is the existence of a portion of the format that we simply do not know about (yet). Of less concern are the minor details about the actual transmission. For instance: Added AM modulation (or not) to zero carrier at the point of phase change is as yet unmentioned.
Bob -----Original Message----- From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On Behalf Of Poul-Henning Kamp Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 2:05 PM To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement Subject: Re: [time-nuts] WWVB Now a Monopoly In message <50633bf8.9050...@ussc.com>, Clint Turner writes: >In reviewing the NIST document, I don't see anything particularly >difficult about the new format - either in terms of extracting the time >or phase/frequency information from the transmissions. As a somewhat seasoned VLF SDR radio-nut, I must admit that I find the yelling of bloody murder over a so simple and well documented transmission format. Class action suit because they *improve* your VLF time/freq reference signal and document the new format ? Really ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ 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.
