X-GM-THRID: 1199366284791738298 X-Gmail-Labels: rsgb lf X-Gmail-Received: c5735f6ea0b117fc81baa32403d6d178bf24881e Delivered-To: daveyxm@gmail.com Received: by 10.54.70.6 with SMTP id s6cs13886wra; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 00:59:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.48.238.3 with SMTP id l3mr2983802nfh; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 00:59:08 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id c28si495593nfb.2006.04.10.00.59.07; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 00:59:08 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (gmail.com: 193.82.116.20 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1FSrGR-0007m6-26 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 08:56:47 +0100 Received: from [193.82.59.130] (helo=relay2.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1FSrGO-0007lx-Ge for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 08:56:44 +0100 Received: from smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com ([217.12.12.198]) by relay2.thorcom.net with smtp (Exim 4.51) id 1FSsVH-0007jk-0Z for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 10:16:12 +0100 Received: (qmail 87290 invoked from network); 10 Apr 2006 07:56:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO LAPTOP) (peter.martinez@btinternet.com@81.159.155.161 with login) by smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Apr 2006 07:56:37 -0000 Message-ID: <001801c65c74$4b275b30$0300a8c0@LAPTOP> From: "Peter Martinez" To: References: <200603311839550854.021DC57E@smtp.wanadoo.fr> <000601c65582$aefd8ec0$cada380a@acer5gi5q0ubzj> <8bf118410604040532gf1861f9r9dfaa0fe2d6f4be1@mail.gmail.com> <004501c657e5$b779fbf0$0300a8c0@LAPTOP> <44395583.9070200@g3ysx.org.uk> <004b01c65c09$afc51e30$0300a8c0@LAPTOP> <443A05EE.1070703@g3ysx.org.uk> Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 07:56:37 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: -0.8 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,AWL=-0.838 Subject: Re: LF: Rugby LORAN measurement? Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 6615 Stuart: The design of an MSF receiver, intended to recover the carrier frequency to any great accuracy, needs to be able to reject the existing 'unwanted' signals either side of the carrier. These are only about 15dB down and at +/-1Hz. I am referring to the 1 sec timing pulses (gaps). The disturbance from this 1Hz source has to be attenuated by a very large amount if it isn't to affect the output of the frequency standard. If we suppose that MSF receivers in service can achieve this, they shouldn't suffer any problem from unwanted products which are somewhat further away, at 6 and 8Hz, and are already a long way down. I cannot detect them here which probably means they are more than 70dB down. I know it would be nice to be rid of the LORAN interference, but this line of reasoning may not be a means to that end, and in any case it wouldn't help amateurs close to the other LORAN transmitters. I understand the Rugby site must close in a year or so and they are looking for an alternative site for the 60kHz MSF transmitter. The question becomes whether the LORAN transmitter will also move to that new site or whether it will close down. The long term future of LORAN has always seemed shakey but it doesn't look as if it will be killed-off until there is a European second-source for satellite-based position-finding, and that seems some years away yet. 73 Peter G3PLX >The accuracy of MSF is 2 parts in 10E12, so systematic interference even a >long long way down >may well have an effect. It will depend on the design of the receiver and >whether it has a front >end filter that has high rejection at +6Hz, -8Hz, but prior to the LORAN >transmitter.