Message-ID: <425C00F4.5040503@zen.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:10:12 +0100
From: Stewart Bryant <zen27607@zen.co.uk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <96.253b49f5.2f8d5569@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <96.253b49f5.2f8d5569@aol.com>
Subject: Re: LF: Pseudo-synch QRSS
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


WarmSpgs@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 4/12/2005 10:09:21 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
> mike.dennison@ntlworld.com writes:
>
>     My point is that there has been a lot of discussion about locking to
>     GPS, or Loran, or some other standard, and it has failed to attract
>     any practical interest because it is more complex than most amateurs
>     would like.
>
>     An improvement could be made by simply making sure that the computers
>     at both ends are within a few seconds of each other (for QRSS 60 or
>     120), and ensuring that the FFT software knows roughly when the dot
>     period starts.
>
> This is pretty much the point of GPS-BPSK, which only requires time 
> synchronization with the 1pps marker to achieve performance 
> improvement.  That's not at all complex, but thus far has not seen 
> wide use.  It would be nice to see it applied to QRSS, but will the 
> "complexity" of inputting a 1pps marker to a computer be too great for 
> would-be TA explorers?  :)

For those on broadband, an NTP server will give the required level of 
accuracy.
No hardware needed, just s/w config.

Stewart


>  
> John
>