Re: LF: Rugby Loran station

[Stewart Bryant <zen27607@zen.co.uk>]

Dave Pick wrote:

> Pat and all
>  
> I think it's more a case of getting some cash in for Rugby over the 
> next 2 years whilst they have to keep it going to complete the MSF 
> 60kHz contract.
> It is the worst news I have heard for LF in the UK, it will kill the 
> band... I know, I have tried to operate from Guernsey which is a 
> similar distance from Lessay...
>  
Looks like it's strategic.  Look at
http://www.loran.org/library/AvionicsPerspectivesAugust.pdf
and other articles on the same site.

Wonder if this is what they want 73KHz back for?

How diffiicult would it be to make a Loran gate to put in front of theRX?
After all the station is fixed so you must, in principle, know when the
pulses are due.

Stewart G3YSX



> 73
> Dave
> G3YXM.
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
>     [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] On Behalf Of G4gvw@aol.com
>     Sent: 01 November 2004 22:53
>     To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
>     Subject: Re: LF: Rugby Loran station
>
>     Bad news is often a different spin!
>      
>     I wish to hell this organisation ( in which I own stock) would get
>     its corporate act together.
>     In a recent article written up in a prestigious professional
>     journal for managerial people, BT were being quoted as
>     concentrating their efforts on the conversion of their many and
>     varied interests in a myriad of disparate networking technologies
>     into a largely IP-based offering of services in a global
>     marketplace. What with GPS, GLONAST and (soon to be) Galileo (the
>     European version of GPS), what on earth are they hoping to gain
>     and where is the commercial advantage. Or, am I missing a trick
>     here? Is it just possible that LF has a commercial  or strategic
>     value we are not informed about! I think we should be told.
>      
>     73
>     Pat g4gvw