Re: WWVB reception indicator needed

From: Tim Shoppa (shoppa_at_trailing-edge.com)
Date: 10/29/04 

Date: 29 Oct 2004 09:49:33 -0700

Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message news:<Uycgd.36206$QJ3.16619@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>...
> Well, I don't know which was first or is better, WWVB or DCF77.
> Sometimes our stuff wins, sometimes theirs. All I know is that the
> European version is not so limited to sync at night

It's not technology, but geography and LW propogation. I myself liked
it better when WWV came out of Greenbelt MD but those days are long
gone.

> >But broadcasting a time that's incorrect by 7 or 8 hours?????
> >(difference
> >between UTC and PST/PDT).
> >
> >Unlicensed operations are allowed on longwave frequencies, but they're
> >limited to one watt and the frequency range is 160kHz to 190kHz
> >("lowfers").
> >
> >
> But this could only work at 77.5KHz since these watches have crystal
> filter of just a few ten Hertz bandwidth.

Still, it seems like a crime against National Standards to sit on
any standard frequency/time radio frequency and broadcast codes that
are known to be wrong.

You know, NIST *does* have a police force.

Tim.

Loading