Chris indeed 60 khz is fun but I have experienced its limitations on the east coast way to many times. Technically speaking it sucks. ;-) Is that technical? From a spoiled loran C user. Ahh for the old days. But that said my experience at the higher frequencies does differ from yours and thats why I suggested it over driving references back and forth by car. Really looking for a common view for the 2 sites. The AM band at these distances would be very good but I just have no idea either for TV or AM how much a broadcaster might cooperate. Especially messing with the bread and butter. Thank heavens not my challenge. Though what started this thread is the neutrino thing. You have to imagine anyone who is playing that game can afford to do some clever stuff like renting space on a tower... Maybe a bit O dark fiber... Maybe even a few CS references to boot. Can I have the leftovers please? Regards Paul WB8TSL/1 On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Chris Albertson <albertson.chris@gmail.com > wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Thomas A Frank <ka2cdk@cox.net> > Date: Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 8:20 PM > Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Neutrino timing > To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement < > time-nuts@febo.com> > > > > Perhaps take advantage of one of the numerous AM radio stations in the > midwest that happen to be about half way between? > > > Lets way we could build a 5,000 foot tower, nearly a mile high. Such > a tower would have a direct line of sight out to only about 90 miles. > Yes it could transmit to greater distance but that is because the > radio wave bends, either ground waves or by refraction in the > atmosphere. Either way the path length is not predictable. And worse > there is likely some multi path too. > > That is one of my projects, I'm slowly building tools to receive WWVB > (60KHz) and compare to "true" time. The goal is to learn something > about the atmosphere from how the propagation delay changes. But I > already know the delay changes and is "noisy" > -- > > Chris Albertson > Redondo Beach, California > > _______________________________________________ > 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. >

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:11 PM, paul swed <paulswedb@gmail.com> wrote: > Chris indeed 60 khz is fun but I have experienced its limitations on the > east coast way to many times. Technically speaking it sucks. ;-) Is that > technical? From a spoiled loran C user. Ahh for the old days. It sucks for timing. But my goal is to study the just how poor it is. The "poorness" tells something about the propagation path or so I hope. I brought this up to counter the suggestion to use AM radio. It would be very poor, far worse then simply buying a $200 Thunderbolt. Chris Albertson Redondo Beach, California

Right but they have that ability and its not good enough. The alternative was to run a CS back and forth by a car over 400 miles. Indeed I do watch wwvb propagation from the east coast. Its interesting to see it shift around and other crazy things like suddenly dropping through the floor. On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Chris Albertson <albertson.chris@gmail.com>wrote: > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:11 PM, paul swed <paulswedb@gmail.com> wrote: > > Chris indeed 60 khz is fun but I have experienced its limitations on the > > east coast way to many times. Technically speaking it sucks. ;-) Is that > > technical? From a spoiled loran C user. Ahh for the old days. > > It sucks for timing. But my goal is to study the just how poor it is. > The "poorness" tells something about the propagation path or so I > hope. I brought this up to counter the suggestion to use AM radio. > It would be very poor, far worse then simply buying a $200 > Thunderbolt. > > > Chris Albertson > Redondo Beach, California > > _______________________________________________ > 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. >

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 6:08 PM, paul swed <paulswedb@gmail.com> wrote: > Right but they have that ability and its not good enough. > The alternative was to It may very likely be good enough. Lots of people think they got it right. They either have a 60nS timing error which would be huge even for many home labs or neutrinos really are fast The goal now is to prove that it's right, or not. The 60nS anomaly may very well be a fact of nature. My guess is that the path length for neutrinos is shorter than the path length for photons. Or should I say the "path length when projected onto there dimensions" is shorter. Chris Albertson Redondo Beach, California