Is MSF 60 kHz off air?

[Stephen]

Is MSF 60 kHz off the air or is it just my bad reception? No signal symbol
for 2 days, but no outage listed on their website.
http://www.npl.co.uk/science-technology/time-frequency/products-and-services/time/msf-outages

.. and why can't they do a 60 kHz filler for London? Reception here has
never been good since they made the very not-sensible decision to move the
transmitter from Rugby, central to the UK, to the Scottish borders, about as
remote as possible from the largest population centre!

[charles]

In article <phBUt.75405$_22....@fx30.fr7>, Stephen

Th decision was not to move the transmitter from Rugby, but to go to
cheaper contactor. Accountants win (again).

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

[Roderick Stewart]

If you think Rugby is central to the UK, you've missed a bit.

Rod.

[charles]

In article <jjs529pm58vq0rmct...@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart

but, it is about as far ass you can get from the sea in England.

[Roger Wilmut]

In article <phBUt.75405$_22....@fx30.fr7>,
"Stephen" <ste...@sptv.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Is MSF 60 kHz off the air or is it just my bad reception? No signal symbol
> for 2 days, but no outage listed on their website.

It's OK here, outskirts of the Greater London area.

[Brian Gaff]

I think he was referring more to the mass of where people are. However to do
a transmitter at that frequency that is not hopelessly inefficient, you
would need a bloody long aerial.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________


"Roderick Stewart" <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jjs529pm58vq0rmct...@4ax.com...

[MB]

They have, it is called DCF77! Much more reliable because they have a
reserve transmitter.

[Graham.]

Where's that then, Jermyn Street SW1?

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

[John Williamson]

It's pretty close (About 20 miles off, according to the RAC and the
Ordnance Survey) to the geographical centre of England.

The centre of the mainland bit of the UK is allegedly in the bit of
Lancashire that used to be West Yorkshire.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Chris S]

A week or so ago using Google Earth I worked out the distance from my
location to the Anthorn Radio Station and it's 344 miles (I am located
in SW England). Unfortunatley, there are 540 metre high Welsh
mountains in the way. I haven't as yet worked out whether the Athorn
aerial is high enough to transmit over the mountains but I guess it
must be.

However, I have one clock which has been on 'continental time' (one
hour ahead of BST at the moment) for many years and a second that
recently jumped one hour ahead. Presumably weather conditions play a
part in that i.e. continental transmitters swamping any signal from
Athorn?

Chris

[Dave Liquorice]

On Sun, 1 Sep 2013 07:38:14 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> ... and why can't they do a 60 kHz filler for London? Reception here has

> never been good since they made the very not-sensible decision to move

> the transmitter from Rugby, ...

A good move if you ask me. Couldn't get a useable signal from Rugby
get a stonking one now. B-) What's the point of providing any radio
signal service in the metropolis when most of the time it will be
swamped by all the combined RF shit that modern electronics shoves
out?

NTP is your friend. B-)

> ... central to the UK, to the Scottish borders, ...

Er, Anthorn is on the Solway coast of Cumbria, not really "borders"
and it's nearer to central UK than Rugby.

> ... about as remote as possible from the largest population centre!

I don't think you did very well at geography or you haven't got a
clue about where Anthorn actually is. Tha vast majority of of
Scotland, all of NI and good chunk of Northumberland is further away
from London than Anthorn is. And I wouldn't be surprised if parts of
Cornwall are further away as well, BICBA to work that out.

--
Cheers
Dave.

[Dave Liquorice]

On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 12:44:35 +0100, Chris S wrote:

> Unfortunatley, there are 540 metre high Welsh mountains in the way. I
> haven't as yet worked out whether the Athorn aerial is high enough to
> transmit over the mountains but I guess it must be.

Doesn't need to 60 kHz is reasonable at going straight through rock.
Go lower and you can communicate with submerged submarines anywhere
in the world.

> Presumably weather conditions play a part in that i.e. continental
> transmitters swamping any signal from Athorn?

Pretty sure there are no other 60 kHz transmitters in europe. The
other european time transmitter is DCF77 on 77 kHz. WWVB in Colorado,
USA is on 60 kHz and transmits UTC rather than local time. The AM
modulation method looks very similar to that of MSF.

--
Cheers
Dave.

[Bill Wright]

When I was at school the geog teacher said it was impossible to say
where the centre of Britain was. I said why not cut out the shape of
Britain in plywood and find where it balanced? He said, "Stupid boy!"

Bill

[Stephen]

"Chris S" <dq5ue...@snkmail.com> wrote in message
news:m4862990ojg257uvs...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 08:54:51 +0100, Roderick Stewart
> <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 1 Sep 2013 07:38:14 +0100, "Stephen"
>><ste...@sptv.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Is MSF 60 kHz off the air or is it just my bad reception? No signal
>>>symbol
>>>for 2 days, but no outage listed on their website.
>>>http://www.npl.co.uk/science-technology/time-frequency/products-and-services/time/msf-outages
>>>
>>>.. and why can't they do a 60 kHz filler for London? Reception here has
>>>never been good since they made the very not-sensible decision to move
>>>the
>>>transmitter from Rugby, central to the UK, to the Scottish borders, about
>>>as
>>>remote as possible from the largest population centre!
>>
>>If you think Rugby is central to the UK, you've missed a bit.
>
> A week or so ago using Google Earth I worked out the distance from my
> location to the Anthorn Radio Station and it's 344 miles (I am located
> in SW England). Unfortunatley, there are 540 metre high Welsh
> mountains in the way. I haven't as yet worked out whether the Athorn
> aerial is high enough to transmit over the mountains but I guess it
> must be.

It's a ground wave with a wavelength of 5000 metres, which sticks to the
ground. The problem is not so much getting over the mountains, but the
electrical conductivity of the ground which may be low in the Welsh
mountains.

[Bill Findlay]

On 01/09/2013 07:38, in article phBUt.75405$_22....@fx30.fr7, "Stephen"

Something is wrong with your geography.
About 500 miles wrong, in fact.

--
Bill Findlay
with blueyonder.co.uk;
use surname & forename;

[tony sayer]

In article <CE49119E.358E8%yald...@blueyonder.co.uk>, Bill Findlay
<yald...@blueyonder.co.uk> scribeth thus

Well as measured off Google earth to the following furthest points
it's..


265 miles to Cape Wrath on the mainland of Scotland, North West cost..

271 miles from the centre of London..

351 miles to Lands End South West Coast

324 miles from Dover South East coast..

Course to allow for "population weighting" then thats another can of
statistics which I haven't got to hand but on an estimate it ought be
further inland and somewhat further sarff;).

Course it s nice and wet where it is, and finding another location who'd
want that mast in their back yard?..

I suppose it could have a synchronised relay in the London area but I
don't think it would be that easy and effective and having never done
synching Two VLF 'mitters together...

--
Tony Sayer

[Bill Findlay]

On 01/09/2013 16:26, in article 5rjN0TDW...@bancom.co.uk, "tony sayer"

<to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <CE49119E.358E8%yald...@blueyonder.co.uk>, Bill Findlay
> <yald...@blueyonder.co.uk> scribeth thus
>> On 01/09/2013 07:38, in article phBUt.75405$_22....@fx30.fr7, "Stephen"
>> <ste...@sptv.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Is MSF 60 kHz off the air or is it just my bad reception? No signal symbol
>>> for 2 days, but no outage listed on their website.
>>> http://www.npl.co.uk/science-technology/time-frequency/products-and-services
>>> /t
>>> ime/msf-outages
>>>
>>> .. and why can't they do a 60 kHz filler for London? Reception here has
>>>
>>> never been good since they made the very not-sensible decision to move the
>>> transmitter from Rugby, central to the UK, to the Scottish borders, about as
>>> remote as possible from the largest population centre!
>>
>> Something is wrong with your geography.
>> About 500 miles wrong, in fact.
>>
>
> Well as measured off Google earth to the following furthest points
> it's..
>
>
> 265 miles to Cape Wrath on the mainland of Scotland, North West cost..

Shetland is part of the UK. Why stop at Cape Wrath?

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <kvvf91$e7t$2...@speranza.aioe.org>, Bill Wright

<bi...@invalid.com> wrote:

> >
> When I was at school the geog teacher said it was impossible to say
> where the centre of Britain was. I said why not cut out the shape of
> Britain in plywood and find where it balanced? He said, "Stupid boy!"

Did he explain why he said this? I can think of a theory reason now, but
I'm not sure if anyone would have known that particular 'reason' before the
age when 'fractals and chaos' became trendy.

Ignoring, that I can see problems with practical accuracy, but don't know
what he had in mind...

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html

[tony sayer]

In article <CE491E57.358F8%yald...@blueyonder.co.uk>, Bill Findlay

<yald...@blueyonder.co.uk> scribeth thus
>On 01/09/2013 16:26, in article 5rjN0TDW...@bancom.co.uk, "tony sayer"
><to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <CE49119E.358E8%yald...@blueyonder.co.uk>, Bill Findlay
>> <yald...@blueyonder.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>> On 01/09/2013 07:38, in article phBUt.75405$_22....@fx30.fr7, "Stephen"
>>> <ste...@sptv.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is MSF 60 kHz off the air or is it just my bad reception? No signal symbol
>>>> for 2 days, but no outage listed on their website.
>>>> http://www.npl.co.uk/science-technology/time-frequency/products-and-services
>>>> /t
>>>> ime/msf-outages
>>>>
>>>> .. and why can't they do a 60 kHz filler for London? Reception here has
>>>>
>>>> never been good since they made the very not-sensible decision to move the
>>>> transmitter from Rugby, central to the UK, to the Scottish borders, about as
>>>> remote as possible from the largest population centre!
>>>
>>> Something is wrong with your geography.
>>> About 500 miles wrong, in fact.
>>>
>>
>> Well as measured off Google earth to the following furthest points
>> it's..
>>
>>
>> 265 miles to Cape Wrath on the mainland of Scotland, North West cost..
>
>Shetland is part of the UK. Why stop at Cape Wrath?
>

Yes I thought someone would chime in with that but seeing that the
relative population is quite small and the distance much grater and a
fair old bit of sea in between that would skew the thing badly.

Course you could include Northern Ireland isles of Scilly but for
practical purposes..

--
Tony Sayer

[Chris S]

On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 14:05:30 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
<allsortsn...@howhill.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 12:44:35 +0100, Chris S wrote:
>
>> Unfortunatley, there are 540 metre high Welsh mountains in the way. I
>> haven't as yet worked out whether the Athorn aerial is high enough to
>> transmit over the mountains but I guess it must be.
>
>Doesn't need to 60 kHz is reasonable at going straight through rock.
>Go lower and you can communicate with submerged submarines anywhere
>in the world.

Thanks for the info Dave. Theory 1 out the window! :-)

>
>> Presumably weather conditions play a part in that i.e. continental
>> transmitters swamping any signal from Athorn?
>
>Pretty sure there are no other 60 kHz transmitters in europe. The
>other european time transmitter is DCF77 on 77 kHz. WWVB in Colorado,
>USA is on 60 kHz and transmits UTC rather than local time. The AM
>modulation method looks very similar to that of MSF.

Theory 2 out the window!

Chris S

[Bill Wright]

Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <kvvf91$e7t$2...@speranza.aioe.org>, Bill Wright
> <bi...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> When I was at school the geog teacher said it was impossible to say
>> where the centre of Britain was. I said why not cut out the shape of
>> Britain in plywood and find where it balanced? He said, "Stupid boy!"
>
> Did he explain why he said this? I can think of a theory reason now, but
> I'm not sure if anyone would have known that particular 'reason' before the
> age when 'fractals and chaos' became trendy.
>
> Ignoring, that I can see problems with practical accuracy, but don't know
> what he had in mind...

He said it because I contradicted his assertion. It was the same when I
knew how to spell 'yacht'.

Bill

[Richard Evans]

On 01/09/2013 07:38, Stephen wrote:

> Is MSF 60 kHz off the air or is it just my bad reception? No signal symbol
> for 2 days, but no outage listed on their website.
> http://www.npl.co.uk/science-technology/time-frequency/products-and-services/time/msf-outages

I'm getting as good a signal as I ever got here ( I'm just to the South
of London).

>
> .. and why can't they do a 60 kHz filler for London?

That would create mush zones, where the 2 signals would cancel out
causing bad reception, or no reception. If there was a repeater, then it
would need to be on a different frequency, but which frequency.

> Reception here has
> never been good since they made the very not-sensible decision to move the
> transmitter from Rugby, central to the UK, to the Scottish borders, about as
> remote as possible from the largest population centre!

I could do with a better signal here. I had to position my 2 radio
clocks carefully to get them to work.

Perhaps they should make clocks that can also use the Radio 4 LW signal.
It is a strong signal here in the South East, and I'm pretty sure I read
that time signals are among the data that it transmitted. In fact it
would be useful to be able to choose from whatever signals are available.

Richard E.

[Richard Evans]

On 01/09/2013 14:05, Dave Liquorice wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 12:44:35 +0100, Chris S wrote:

>
> Doesn't need to 60 kHz is reasonable at going straight through rock.
> Go lower and you can communicate with submerged submarines anywhere
> in the world.

Does it really go through rock?
I assumed it was just a ground wave, which got over the top of obstacles
by diffraction.

Richard E.

[Richard Evans]

On 01/09/2013 16:26, tony sayer wrote:

>
> Well as measured off Google earth to the following furthest points
> it's..
>
>
> 265 miles to Cape Wrath on the mainland of Scotland, North West cost..
>
> 271 miles from the centre of London..
>
> 351 miles to Lands End South West Coast
>
> 324 miles from Dover South East coast..
>
> Course to allow for "population weighting" then thats another can of
> statistics which I haven't got to hand but on an estimate it ought be
> further inland and somewhat further sarff;).

Well as I understand it, this was what they did when they decided to put
the main LW transmitter near Birmingham. (Droitwhich).

>
> Course it s nice and wet where it is, and finding another location who'd
> want that mast in their back yard?..
>
> I suppose it could have a synchronised relay in the London area but I
> don't think it would be that easy and effective and having never done
> synching Two VLF 'mitters together...

I wonder if it would be worth putting time signals on some of the main
MW transmissions, using something similar to the data system used on LW
198Khz. That way most people would be within range of a good signal from
somewhere. The Radio 5 TX from Brookams park would server London very
nicely (I think it's on 909 Khz). Obviously however this would require
slightly more sophisticated receivers, to be able to select from all the
different signals.

Richard E.

[Dave Liquorice]

On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 20:20:08 +0100, Richard Evans wrote:

>> Doesn't need to 60 kHz is reasonable at going straight through
rock.
>> Go lower and you can communicate with submerged submarines
anywhere
>> in the world.
>
> Does it really go through rock?
> I assumed it was just a ground wave, which got over the top of obstacles
> by diffraction.

I don't know the physics. Cave radios use similar frequencies but are
a bit limited in range but a lot of that may well be down to poor
transmit aerials and low power.

--
Cheers
Dave.

[tony sayer]

In article <l004mn$d7v$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Richard Evans <rp.evans.nos
p...@tiscali.co.uk> scribeth thus

>On 01/09/2013 16:26, tony sayer wrote:
>
>>
>> Well as measured off Google earth to the following furthest points
>> it's..
>>
>>
>> 265 miles to Cape Wrath on the mainland of Scotland, North West cost..
>>
>> 271 miles from the centre of London..
>>
>> 351 miles to Lands End South West Coast
>>
>> 324 miles from Dover South East coast..
>>
>> Course to allow for "population weighting" then thats another can of
>> statistics which I haven't got to hand but on an estimate it ought be
>> further inland and somewhat further sarff;).
>
>Well as I understand it, this was what they did when they decided to put
>the main LW transmitter near Birmingham. (Droitwhich).

Indeed they did..

>
>>
>> Course it s nice and wet where it is, and finding another location who'd
>> want that mast in their back yard?..
>>
>> I suppose it could have a synchronised relay in the London area but I
>> don't think it would be that easy and effective and having never done
>> synching Two VLF 'mitters together...
>
>I wonder if it would be worth putting time signals on some of the main
>MW transmissions, using something similar to the data system used on LW
>198Khz. That way most people would be within range of a good signal from
>somewhere. The Radio 5 TX from Brookams park would server London very
>nicely (I think it's on 909 Khz). Obviously however this would require
>slightly more sophisticated receivers, to be able to select from all the
>different signals.

The receivers sir, The receivers!. Either you'd have to design new ones
and there are a lot of radio clocks out there. Course they could make a
DAB one mind you It'd have to be mains power, not like my bedside clock
cannot remember when I changed the AA cells last;)...


>
>Richard E.

--
Tony Sayer

[tony sayer]

In article <nyyfbegfubjuvyypb...@srv1.howhill.co.uk>, Dave
Liquorice <allsortsn...@howhill.com> scribeth thus

Usually UHF and the signals will reflect off the cave surfaces to an
extent..
--
Tony Sayer

[Stephen]

"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VWgWLjFZ...@bancom.co.uk...

The time is already available on DAB, DTT, DSat and GPS and the mobile phone
networks, but none of these has the convenience of a radio clock, and the
clocks would be more expensive if they had to use these systems.

MSF 60 kHz is not actually VLF but counts as LF, the same as Radio 4, and we
DO have two LF transmitters synced together. It's 3 actually, Droitwich,
Burghead and Westerglen on 198 kHz, so syncing should be easy enough. The
next job is to find a tall mast in the London area:

I suppose there must be a lightning conductor on the "Shard".

It's the tallest building in Europe (306 metres) and if we could put say a
kilowatt of RF up the lightning conductor it has a ready made LF antenna. It
would be a quarter wavelength antenna on 252 kHz LF, or a 20 degree antenna
on 60 kHz, which should be good enough.

An alternative is the sloping wire used for MF transmissions from Crystal
Palace (558 kHz, 720 kHz Radio 4 Long Wave filler and 1035 kHz), but this is
only about 160 metres tall.

[Dave Liquorice]

On Sun, 1 Sep 2013 22:49:38 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> DO have two LF transmitters synced together. It's 3 actually, Droitwich,
> Burghead and Westerglen on 198 kHz, so syncing should be easy enough.

Still have mush areas, we are sort of in the one between Droitwich
and Westerglen.

--
Cheers
Dave.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <538463e...@audiomisc.co.uk>,

Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

>Did he explain why he said this? I can think of a theory reason now, but
>I'm not sure if anyone would have known that particular 'reason' before the
>age when 'fractals and chaos' became trendy.

Even if the coastline is fractal, so that its length has no
straightforward value, the area and centre of "gravity" converge
to a definite limit as you measure at decreasing scale.

-- Richard

[Richard Tobin]

In article <5rjN0TDW...@bancom.co.uk>,

tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>Course to allow for "population weighting" then thats another can of

>statistics [...]

And of course the Scottish population is weightier than the
English, due to the deep fried Mars Bars.

-- Richard

[Richard Evans]

On 01/09/2013 22:49, Stephen wrote:

>
> MSF 60 kHz is not actually VLF but counts as LF, the same as Radio 4, and we
> DO have two LF transmitters synced together. It's 3 actually, Droitwich,
> Burghead and Westerglen on 198 kHz, so syncing should be easy enough. The
> next job is to find a tall mast in the London area:

And there are mush zones where the different LW signals interact with
each other. Eg, I heard that Radio 4 LW sounds dreadful in Newcastle,
hence a MW transmission is provided as an alternative.

If there was a fill in transmitter using the same 60Khz frequency, then
there would be mush zones, and that might make reception overall worse
than it is now.

>
> I suppose there must be a lightning conductor on the "Shard".
>
> It's the tallest building in Europe (306 metres) and if we could put say a
> kilowatt of RF up the lightning conductor it has a ready made LF antenna. It
> would be a quarter wavelength antenna on 252 kHz LF, or a 20 degree antenna
> on 60 kHz, which should be good enough.

A 1KW transmission right next to a building where people are working?
Not sure if that would be allowed, and besides, it's still a great deal
less than 1/4 wavelength. At Droitwhich, they use a T aerial because the
aerial is less than 1/4 wavelangth. It might be difficult to do the same
thing at the shard, also I think that having the lightening conductor
connected to ground would be a problem.

>
> An alternative is the sloping wire used for MF transmissions from Crystal
> Palace (558 kHz, 720 kHz Radio 4 Long Wave filler and 1035 kHz), but this is
> only about 160 metres tall.

I think it might be better to broadcast a alternative time signals on
MW, and sell radio clocks that can select the alternative signals.

Richard E.

[Dave Liquorice]

On Sun, 1 Sep 2013 21:00:10 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

>> I don't know the physics. Cave radios use similar frequencies but
are
>> a bit limited in range but a lot of that may well be down to poor
>> transmit aerials and low power.
>
> Usually UHF and the signals will reflect off the cave surfaces to an
> extent..

Cave radios as in underground to/from the surface. Cave walls are
generally very rough and just scatter the signal. Have you not
noticed how there is very little acoustic down a cave? You'll get
echos in man made tunnels as the walls are frequently lined and thus
smooth.



--
Cheers
Dave.

[Richard Evans]

On 01/09/2013 20:59, tony sayer wrote:
> In article <l004mn$d7v$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Richard Evans <rp.evans.nos

>>

>> Well as I understand it, this was what they did when they decided to put
>> the main LW transmitter near Birmingham. (Droitwhich).
>
> Indeed they did..

And totally off topic. I just noticed that if you find Droitwhich on
Google Earth, the north tower looks like it has a big pause button next
to it. Could this be a sign that they want to pause the transmission lol.

[Bill Wright]

Dave Liquorice wrote:

> Have you not
> noticed how there is very little acoustic down a cave?

No we've progressed to living in houses.

Bill

[tony sayer]

In article <nyyfbegfubjuvyypb...@srv1.howhill.co.uk>, Dave
Liquorice <allsortsn...@howhill.com> scribeth thus

Yes indeed you will and do. Scattering is a multipath environment
sometimes adding, sometimes subtracting.

For this reason road tunnels and sometimes rail too will use a leaky
feeder such as Radiax that distributes a controlled amount of signal
along its length in order to ensure reliable comms..

Quite why anyone would wan to go into a cave makes me shiver, give me a
mountain top anyday;)...


--
Tony Sayer

[tony sayer]

In article <l00h3r$ejg$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Richard Evans <rp.evans.nos
p...@tiscali.co.uk> scribeth thus

Nope, can't see that in any version of Google maps or Earth?..

If anyone way to look its actually at Wychbold a far more "woody"
sounding name;)..
--
Tony Sayer

[ne...@address.invalid]

On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 07:01:59 +0100, Bill Wright <bi...@invalid.com>
wrote:

Except when our progress in weaponry sends us back into holes in the
ground.

[ne...@address.invalid]

If Scotland decides on UDI then we should move the thing to Cornwall
and let the buggers build their own.

[ne...@address.invalid]

On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 00:03:24 +0100, Richard Evans
<rp.evan...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

>On 01/09/2013 20:59, tony sayer wrote:
>> In article <l004mn$d7v$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Richard Evans <rp.evans.nos
>
>>>
>>> Well as I understand it, this was what they did when they decided to put
>>> the main LW transmitter near Birmingham. (Droitwhich).
>>
>> Indeed they did..
>
>And totally off topic. I just noticed that if you find Droitwhich on

Droitwhat?

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <l00fd2$1bjm$1...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>, Richard Tobin

Yes. The problems are with accurately defining the fractal shape and
'dimension' value.

Slainte,

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <nyyfbegfubjuvyypb...@srv1.howhill.co.uk>, Dave

The situation is quite complicated for three general reasons.

1) As per a comment in "Antennas in Matter" by King and Smith, to the
effect that "The conductivity of rock varies over a very wide range of
values covering over 20 orders of magnitude".

2) The value varies a great deal with changes in water content.

3) At low freqencies with the antennas 'close' (in wavelength terms) to the
ground, the penetration and propagation wave has an impedance very
different to 'free space'. To optimise this the antenna may have to be
matched to such a situation rather than matched to free space. i.e.
generate a different H / E ratio.

So for example, low-frequencies 'radios' for underground use may
essentially be inducing 'magnetic fields' in the rocks which couple the
signals to a receiver rather than having to 'bounce along the tunnels' or
be reflected. All depends on the details.

Afraid I know nothing about cave radios, though. Most of the work I've had
any interest in related to this deals more with water than rock! No doubt
if someone is interested they can find details of the EM properties of
rocks and soils somewhere on the net.

[Stephen]

"Richard Evans" <rp.evan...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:l00frg$bvg$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> On 01/09/2013 22:49, Stephen wrote:

If there was a fill in transmitter using the same 60 kHz frequency, then

there would be mush zones, and that might make reception overall worse
than it is now.

Yes, but the mush zones should be much less of a problem because the
bandwidth of the signal modulating the transmitter is only 10 Hz instead of
4000 Hz. The distortion happens because of the carrier cancelling out while
the sidebands remain, but this should not happen with the time signal
because the sidebands are so close in frequency to the carrier.

>>
>> I suppose there must be a lightning conductor on the "Shard".
>>
>> It's the tallest building in Europe (306 metres) and if we could put say
>> a
>> kilowatt of RF up the lightning conductor it has a ready made LF antenna.
>> It
>> would be a quarter wavelength antenna on 252 kHz LF, or a 20 degree
>> antenna
>> on 60 kHz, which should be good enough.
>

> A 1kW transmission right next to a building where people are working?

> Not sure if that would be allowed, and besides, it's still a great deal
> less than 1/4 wavelength.

They definitely allowed it in the 1920s, when 2LO broadcast from Selfridges
in Oxford Street with 3 kW.

IIRC there are quite a lot of houses close to Droitwich getting subjected to
500 kW of Radio 4 and another 400 kW of Talk Sport, so it's not
unprecedented. I wonder what the limits are?

> At Droitwich, they use a T aerial because the aerial is less than 1/4

> wavelangth. It might be difficult to do the same thing at the shard, also

> I think that having the lightning conductor connected to ground would be a
> problem.

I think this is fairly standard. Long and Medium Wave transmitting antennas
are lightning conductors anyway and they have a spark gap so the lightning
current is diverted to ground when they get struck, instead of going into
the transmitter.

>> An alternative is the sloping wire used for MF transmissions from Crystal
>> Palace (558 kHz, 720 kHz Radio 4 Long Wave filler and 1035 kHz), but this
>> is
>> only about 160 metres tall.
>
> I think it might be better to broadcast a alternative time signals on MW,
> and sell radio clocks that can select the alternative signals.
>
> Richard E.

True, but compatibility with existing clock receivers would be very
desirable.

[MB]

On 01/09/2013 20:31, Richard Evans wrote:
> I wonder if it would be worth putting time signals on some of the main
> MW transmissions, using something similar to the data system used on LW
> 198Khz. That way most people would be within range of a good signal from
> somewhere. The Radio 5 TX from Brookams park would server London very
> nicely (I think it's on 909 Khz). Obviously however this would require
> slightly more sophisticated receivers, to be able to select from all the
> different signals.

Why bother with a system that is now not used by many people and is
being phased out in many countries.

VHF FM has clock data on RDS, the accuracy can vary (mainly because of
the difficulty of synchronising to MSF inside a building) but it is good
enough for clock radios.

DAB obviously has the time available on it.

Most professional users seem to have moved away from MSF nowadays.

[MB]

On 01/09/2013 20:59, tony sayer wrote:

> The receivers sir, The receivers!. Either you'd have to design new ones
> and there are a lot of radio clocks out there. Course they could make a
> DAB one mind you It'd have to be mains power, not like my bedside clock
> cannot remember when I changed the AA cells last;)...

They don't have to run all the time, most MSF clocks only synchronise
once a day.

There are large numbers of cheap radio alarm clocks out in use, most
people have no idea whether it uses MSF, DCF77 or what. If a new MW
system was devised then they would have to get clocks capable of using
it which would take a few years.

But why bother when there are so many ways of getting synchronisation of
a clock. I gave up MSF because the light on my alarm clock could switch
on in the suitcase so run the battery down so I took the batteries out
when travelling but often it was difficult to get it work off MSF when
the batteries were put back in either because they were not transmitting
that day or poor signal with it located in such a remote location. It
is better since the move to a more central location at Anthorn but DCF77
is much more reliable.

[MB]

It is rumoured that one of the Scottish universities is working on the
deep fried lettuce leaf to help them achieve their required number of
greens each day.

[charles]

In article <seqdnZklo_2hJLnP...@bt.com>,

my new car has RDS and GPS for the sat nav, but Mazda (in their wisdon)
have disabled the time displays on both, preferring to use a Quartz clock
instead. And they've placed the display so that you can't just flick your
eyes to it.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

[charles]

In article <PIqdnR_PF5ApJrnP...@bt.com>,

could that be the one that sprang from The Edinburgh School of Domestic
science?

[Richard Evans]

On 02/09/2013 15:51, Stephen wrote:
> "Richard Evans" <rp.evan...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:l00frg$bvg$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> On 01/09/2013 22:49, Stephen wrote:
>
> If there was a fill in transmitter using the same 60 kHz frequency, then
> there would be mush zones, and that might make reception overall worse
> than it is now.
>
> Yes, but the mush zones should be much less of a problem because the
> bandwidth of the signal modulating the transmitter is only 10 Hz instead of
> 4000 Hz. The distortion happens because of the carrier cancelling out while
> the sidebands remain, but this should not happen with the time signal
> because the sidebands are so close in frequency to the carrier.

OK so perhaps less of a problem with distortions, but wouldn't there be
areas where the different signals simply cancel each other, resulting in
a much weaker signal, so that people in some areas would suddenly find
they can't pick up the signal any more.

>
>>>
>>> I suppose there must be a lightning conductor on the "Shard".
>>>
>>> It's the tallest building in Europe (306 metres) and if we could put say
>>> a
>>> kilowatt of RF up the lightning conductor it has a ready made LF antenna.
>>> It
>>> would be a quarter wavelength antenna on 252 kHz LF, or a 20 degree
>>> antenna
>>> on 60 kHz, which should be good enough.
>>
>> A 1kW transmission right next to a building where people are working?
>> Not sure if that would be allowed, and besides, it's still a great deal
>> less than 1/4 wavelength.
>
> They definitely allowed it in the 1920s, when 2LO broadcast from Selfridges
> in Oxford Street with 3 kW.

Although I assume that that was before they realized that powerful radio
waves can be bad for your health.

>
> IIRC there are quite a lot of houses close to Droitwich getting subjected to
> 500 kW of Radio 4 and another 400 kW of Talk Sport, so it's not
> unprecedented. I wonder what the limits are?

Close to as in a few 100 yards away, not close to as in being right next
to it. And the signal gets 4 times weaker every time you double the
distance. So I would guess that having a 500Kw TX a few hundred yards
away would provide quite a bit less signal than standing right next to a
1Kw TX.

Then what about the problem of wiring in the building. wouldn't there be
the potential for dangerous voltages to be induced in the wiring. At
Droitwhich they have to have a system to detect arcing in the guy wires
attached to the towers, so that power can be reduced to to stop the
arcing. It takes pretty high voltages to cause problems like that.

>
>> At Droitwich, they use a T aerial because the aerial is less than 1/4
>> wavelangth. It might be difficult to do the same thing at the shard, also
>> I think that having the lightning conductor connected to ground would be a
>> problem.
>
> I think this is fairly standard. Long and Medium Wave transmitting antennas
> are lightning conductors anyway and they have a spark gap so the lightning
> current is diverted to ground when they get struck, instead of going into
> the transmitter.

So to convert one of the lightening conductors into an antenna, you
would have to install a spark gap. Wouldn't that make it less effective,
as the spark gap would result in a significant and dangerous voltage
difference between the building and the ground. That is all very well
for protecting a metal tower that does not have people working in it,
but I have my doubts about doing that in an office block. It might
actually work out less trouble to attach a separate wire to the outside
of the building, rather than to try and use the lightening conductor.

Then you would still have the problem of the aerial being considerably
shorter than 1/4 wavelength. I suppose you could get around that by
having sections where the aerial is coiled around the building. But I
still think this idea would end up being more trouble than it's worth.

>
>>> An alternative is the sloping wire used for MF transmissions from Crystal
>>> Palace (558 kHz, 720 kHz Radio 4 Long Wave filler and 1035 kHz), but this
>>> is
>>> only about 160 metres tall.
>>
>> I think it might be better to broadcast a alternative time signals on MW,
>> and sell radio clocks that can select the alternative signals.
>>
>> Richard E.
>
> True, but compatibility with existing clock receivers would be very
> desirable.

Yes, in an ideal world.

However adding a fill in TX on 60Khz could make many peoples clocks fail
to work due to being in areas where the signals cancel out. I suppose
you could come up with a system where the null zones are changed, but
altering the phase of the fill in TX. Perhaps use a different phase
every minute, so that every clock could pick up the full time broadcast
at some point. Although this would mean it would no longer be an
accurate as a frequency standard, as changing the phase would require
temporary changes in frequency.

If you used alternative frequencies instead, then at least people would
have the choice of making do with the existing signal, or upgrading, and
surely with modern electronics it wouldn't be too hard to make clocks
that can receive on different frequencies, and perhaps use different
systems. Then again, I wonder why they don't seem to make many clocks
that use the time signals transmitted by the Radio 4 LW signal. Perhaps
the 60Khz signal is already more reliable is most areas.

Richard E.

[Richard Evans]

On 02/09/2013 08:32, tony sayer wrote:

>
>
> Nope, can't see that in any version of Google maps or Earth?..
>
> If anyone way to look its actually at Wychbold a far more "woody"
> sounding name;)..
>

Well you could call it a number of different things.
If you called it Birmingham, then more people would know where you mean ;-)

[Richard Evans]

On 02/09/2013 10:57, ne...@address.invalid wrote:

> If Scotland decides on UDI then we should move the thing to Cornwall
> and let the buggers build their own.
>

Or just charge then for use of ours ;-)

[Richard Evans]

On 02/09/2013 08:32, tony sayer wrote:

>>

>> And totally off topic. I just noticed that if you find Droitwhich on
>> Google Earth, the north tower looks like it has a big pause button next
>> to it. Could this be a sign that they want to pause the transmission lol.
>
>
> Nope, can't see that in any version of Google maps or Earth?..

I assume it's a building of some sort.
It's right at the base of the tower, and it is square shaped, with 2
dark lines on the top, so it looks like a pause button.

It also stands out on my version of Google Earth, because it seems to be
in much sharper focus than the towers.

[Richard Evans]

And looking more closely, there is also one on the South Tower, which
seems to be identical, but that one is partially obscured by the tower,
and so is not nearly as obvious.

[Stephen]

"Richard Evans" <rp.evan...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message

news:l02et0$c7e$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

A different phase every minute sounds like an excellent idea, and should
solve the problem of null zones around a fill in transmiiter. I don't think
it would stop it being a frequency standard as it would be a step change in
phase.

> If you used alternative frequencies instead, then at least people would
> have the choice of making do with the existing signal, or upgrading, and
> surely with modern electronics it wouldn't be too hard to make clocks that
> can receive on different frequencies, and perhaps use different systems.
> Then again, I wonder why they don't seem to make many clocks that use the
> time signals transmitted by the Radio 4 LW signal. Perhaps the 60Khz
> signal is already more reliable is most areas.

Yes, they have time signals on France Inter LW also (162 kHz from Allouis),
but I've never heard of a clock designed for that either. At 2000 kW it's
more powerful than any of the other transmissions too.

> Richard E.

[ne...@address.invalid]

On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 17:37:55 +0100, Richard Evans
<rp.evan...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

>> IIRC there are quite a lot of houses close to Droitwich getting subjected to
>> 500 kW of Radio 4 and another 400 kW of Talk Sport, so it's not
>> unprecedented. I wonder what the limits are?
>
>Close to as in a few 100 yards away, not close to as in being right next
>to it. And the signal gets 4 times weaker every time you double the
>distance. So I would guess that having a 500Kw TX a few hundred yards
>away would provide quite a bit less signal than standing right next to a
>1Kw TX.
>

Not necessarily, at these frequencies the near field is quite large.
Google 'Fraunhofer distance'

[Dave Liquorice]

On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 17:37:55 +0100, Richard Evans wrote:

> However adding a fill in TX on 60Khz could make many peoples clocks fail
> to work due to being in areas where the signals cancel out.

In the real world they would never completely cancel out and the time
is transmitted as is a carrier present (or not) at given points in
time. It's also 1 bit per second and the signaling is such that you
have huge amounts of time available to oversample.

IIRC the time on 198 kHz is phase modulation of the carrier that
requires a far more complex receiver to detect. An MSF receiver is
little more than a 60 kHz tuned circuit and an amplifier feeding a
switch.

--
Cheers
Dave.

[MB]

No, it's the Govan University, School of Domestic Science with Principal
a Mr R. C. Nesbitt

[Mark Carver]

Stephen wrote:

> The time is already available on DAB, DTT, DSat and GPS and the mobile phone
> networks, but none of these has the convenience of a radio clock, and the
> clocks would be more expensive if they had to use these systems.

In a domestic environment, is anything more accurate than a 10 quid 50Hz mains
locked clock really required ?


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

[Mark Carver]

MB wrote:

> VHF FM has clock data on RDS, the accuracy can vary (mainly because of
> the difficulty of synchronising to MSF inside a building) but it is good
> enough for clock radios.
>

> Most professional users seem to have moved away from MSF nowadays.

Yes, GPS or NTP lock is the favourite now, and surely you wouldn't faff about
these days trying to receive MSF at a tx site (or anywhere 'noisy')?

[David Taylor]

On 2013-09-02, Mark Carver <mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>
>> The time is already available on DAB, DTT, DSat and GPS and the mobile phone
>> networks, but none of these has the convenience of a radio clock, and the
>> clocks would be more expensive if they had to use these systems.
>
> In a domestic environment, is anything more accurate than a 10 quid 50Hz mains
> locked clock really required ?

It's not so much a need for accuracy as the convenience of not having to reset
all the clocks that seem to come with every electrical device you purchase.

--
David Taylor

[MB]

On 02/09/2013 20:48, Mark Carver wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>
>> The time is already available on DAB, DTT, DSat and GPS and the mobile
>> phone networks, but none of these has the convenience of a radio
>> clock, and the clocks would be more expensive if they had to use these
>> systems.
>
> In a domestic environment, is anything more accurate than a 10 quid 50Hz
> mains locked clock really required ?
>
>

Never seen one that adjusted itself between Winter and Summer time
automatically.

Most alarm clocks are battery powered.

[MB]

I wish my cooker and microwave had a radio controlled clock module in
them! I never bother setting the time on them because it does not do
anything except display the time.

[Richard Evans]

On 02/09/2013 20:08, Dave Liquorice wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 17:37:55 +0100, Richard Evans wrote:
>
>> However adding a fill in TX on 60Khz could make many peoples clocks fail
>> to work due to being in areas where the signals cancel out.
>
> In the real world they would never completely cancel out and the time
> is transmitted as is a carrier present (or not) at given points in
> time. It's also 1 bit per second and the signaling is such that you
> have huge amounts of time available to oversample.

Yes, but there is still a minimum signal strength that a receiver would
require, and if there were not reception problems then why would we be
having this discussion.

My point is that there would be many areas where the signal would become
significantly weaker than it is now. So while adding a fill in TX would
help some people, it would also cause reception problems for others.

>
> IIRC the time on 198 kHz is phase modulation of the carrier that
> requires a far more complex receiver to detect. An MSF receiver is
> little more than a 60 kHz tuned circuit and an amplifier feeding a
> switch.
>

Yes I know that it is significantly more complicated to receive the time
signal from Radio 4 LW, but we live in a time when microelectronics are
cheap, so would it really be hard to build a cheap receiver? Also, the
Radio 4 signal is used to switch electric meters. I'm pretty sure that
my Economy 7 meter uses one. So surely they aren't that difficult to build.

[charles]

In article <su2dnbDgz9STY7nP...@bt.com>,

I did have a Grundig clock/radio that had a suumer/winter time button.

> Most alarm clocks are battery powered.

The one on my wife's side of the bed is mains operated. Mine is a DAB
radio plus alarm again runs off mains.

[Richard Evans]

On 02/09/2013 20:10, ne...@address.invalid wrote:

>>
>> Close to as in a few 100 yards away, not close to as in being right next
>> to it. And the signal gets 4 times weaker every time you double the
>> distance. So I would guess that having a 500Kw TX a few hundred yards
>> away would provide quite a bit less signal than standing right next to a
>> 1Kw TX.
>>
> Not necessarily, at these frequencies the near field is quite large.
> Google 'Fraunhofer distance'
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field

"In practical mathematical terms, the dominance of far-field behavior
with sufficient distance from the source appears because both currents
and the oscillating charge-distributions in antennas (and other
radiators) produce dipole type field behavior. While these dipole
near-field intensities may be very powerful near the source, they decay
very rapidly with distance in comparison to EM radiation (the
far-field). Radiative far-field intensity decays more slowly with
distance, following the inverse square law for total EM power that is
typical of all electromagnetic radiation."


This would tend to suggest that the difference at close range actually
quite a bit greater than the inverse square law. So looks like the
difference between being right next to the aerial or being a few hundred
yards away, is actually even greater than I thought.

Richard E.

[Bill Wright]

ne...@address.invalid wrote:

>> And totally off topic. I just noticed that if you find Droitwhich on
>

> Droitwhat?
His spelling is maladroit.

Bill

[Bill Wright]

MB wrote:

> But why bother when there are so many ways of getting synchronisation of
> a clock. I gave up MSF because the light on my alarm clock could switch
> on in the suitcase so run the battery down so I took the batteries out
> when travelling but often it was difficult to get it work off MSF when
> the batteries were put back in either because they were not transmitting
> that day or poor signal with it located in such a remote location. It
> is better since the move to a more central location at Anthorn but DCF77
> is much more reliable.
>

Why all this shite? I got a watch off Donny Market for two quid that
tells me the time and never needs putting right.

Bill

[Bill Wright]

Mark Carver wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>
>> The time is already available on DAB, DTT, DSat and GPS and the mobile
>> phone networks, but none of these has the convenience of a radio
>> clock, and the clocks would be more expensive if they had to use these
>> systems.
>
> In a domestic environment, is anything more accurate than a 10 quid 50Hz
> mains locked clock really required ?
>
>

When my old watch packed up I didn't have one for a bit, and I didn't
realise my phone has the time on it until my son told me. No-one could
blame me for not knowing the time. It was glorious. I drifted though
life with no idea of what time it was.

Bill

[tony sayer]

In article <b8k8c0...@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver
<mark....@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus

>Stephen wrote:
>
>> The time is already available on DAB, DTT, DSat and GPS and the mobile phone
>> networks, but none of these has the convenience of a radio clock, and the
>> clocks would be more expensive if they had to use these systems.
>
>In a domestic environment, is anything more accurate than a 10 quid 50Hz mains
>locked clock really required ?
>
>

Nope//apart from you can't put it 5 mins fast;!..

Do all females do this or is it just the specimen I have;?...
--
Tony Sayer

[tony sayer]

In article <l02v8m$s74$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Richard Evans <rp.evans.nos
p...@tiscali.co.uk> scribeth thus

Yep but if the BBC can't get the valves and it seems what to shut down
the LW service???

Might be the best bet to make clocks work off timing signals embedded in
mobile phone systems most all of them are receivable over the UK for the
longer term?...

--
Tony Sayer

[tony sayer]

In article <b8k8l1...@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver
<mark....@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus

>MB wrote:
>
>> VHF FM has clock data on RDS, the accuracy can vary (mainly because of
>> the difficulty of synchronising to MSF inside a building) but it is good
>> enough for clock radios.
>>
>> Most professional users seem to have moved away from MSF nowadays.
>
>Yes, GPS or NTP lock is the favourite now, and surely you wouldn't faff about
>these days trying to receive MSF at a tx site (or anywhere 'noisy')?
>
>

I have seen it in the past for paging transmitters but they shut that
network down some time ago now...
--
Tony Sayer

[Mark Carver]

On 03/09/2013 06:57, Bill Wright wrote:
>
> When my old watch packed up I didn't have one for a bit, and I didn't
> realise my phone has the time on it until my son told me. No-one could
> blame me for not knowing the time. It was glorious. I drifted though
> life with no idea of what time it was.

I always carry a card in my wallet with the present time written on it,
just in case.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 07:20:02 +0100, tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:

>>In a domestic environment, is anything more accurate than a 10 quid 50Hz mains
>>locked clock really required ?
>>
>>
>
>Nope//apart from you can't put it 5 mins fast;!..
>
>Do all females do this or is it just the specimen I have;?...

In the summer the entire nation puts all its clocks an hour fast.

Rod.

[Stephen]

"Richard Evans" <rp.evan...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message

news:l02v8m$s74$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> On 02/09/2013 20:08, Dave Liquorice wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 17:37:55 +0100, Richard Evans wrote:
>>
>>> However adding a fill in TX on 60Khz could make many peoples clocks fail
>>> to work due to being in areas where the signals cancel out.
>>
>> In the real world they would never completely cancel out and the time
>> is transmitted as is a carrier present (or not) at given points in
>> time. It's also 1 bit per second and the signaling is such that you
>> have huge amounts of time available to oversample.
>
> Yes, but there is still a minimum signal strength that a receiver would
> require, and if there were not reception problems then why would we be
> having this discussion.
>
> My point is that there would be many areas where the signal would become
> significantly weaker than it is now. So while adding a fill in TX would
> help some people, it would also cause reception problems for others.

I think it would help everyone. Your idea of phase reversing the carrier on
the fill in transmitter once a minute is a good one and would solve the
problem.

>> IIRC the time on 198 kHz is phase modulation of the carrier that
>> requires a far more complex receiver to detect. An MSF receiver is
>> little more than a 60 kHz tuned circuit and an amplifier feeding a
>> switch.
>>
> Yes I know that it is significantly more complicated to receive the time
> signal from Radio 4 LW, but we live in a time when microelectronics are
> cheap, so would it really be hard to build a cheap receiver? Also, the
> Radio 4 signal is used to switch electric meters. I'm pretty sure that my
> Economy 7 meter uses one. So surely they aren't that difficult to build.

It would not be too hard but radio clocks are made overseas and sold
internationally for the US market and European markets as well as the UK.
They are designed primarily to receive the very similar 60 kHz transmissions
to the US from WWVB Colorado, and the 77.5 kHz transmissions to Europe from
DCF Germany. Manufacturing non-standard clocks for the UK might not be
economical.

[Paul Ratcliffe]

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 07:20:02 +0100, tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:

>>In a domestic environment, is anything more accurate than a 10 quid 50Hz mains
>>locked clock really required ?
>
> Nope//apart from you can't put it 5 mins fast;!..

What's the point of a clock that is *never* right? Even a stopped one is
right twice a day.

> Do all females do this or is it just the specimen I have;?...

It's not just yours. The subject cropped up with a female colleague a
couple of weeks ago and she did the same thing.

[Adrian Tuddenham]

tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:

[...]

> Yep but if the BBC can't get the valves...

Do you really believe that?

Even if it were true, a transistorised longwave transmitter is not much
of an engineering challenge these days.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[charles]

In article <b8lh6a...@mid.individual.net>,

Mark Carver <mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 03/09/2013 06:57, Bill Wright wrote:
> >
> > When my old watch packed up I didn't have one for a bit, and I didn't
> > realise my phone has the time on it until my son told me. No-one could
> > blame me for not knowing the time. It was glorious. I drifted though
> > life with no idea of what time it was.

> I always carry a card in my wallet with the present time written on it,
> just in case.

I didn't know your name was Neddie

[tony sayer]

In article <slrnl2bafj...@news.pr.network>, Paul Ratcliffe
<ab...@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> scribeth thus

Mate of mine over a pint or two said the other day that he thought that
the logical part of a woman's brain was configured differently to a
man's..

"Logical part" .. said I;?...
--
Tony Sayer

[tony sayer]

In article <1l8mdx5.s63lnb1t4bmpaN%adr...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>,
Adrian Tuddenham <adr...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> scribeth thus

>tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> Yep but if the BBC can't get the valves...
>
>Do you really believe that?

Do keep up at the back there!, course I don't believe it!...

>
>Even if it were true, a transistorised longwave transmitter is not much
>of an engineering challenge these days.
>

They are made and I'm sure they'd like to sell Arqiva one or two but
does the BBC really want to run the LW service when its sinking a lot
into DAB?..
>

--
Tony Sayer

[The Other Mike]

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 11:47:09 +0100, adr...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Adrian
Tuddenham) wrote:

>tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> Yep but if the BBC can't get the valves...
>
>Do you really believe that?
>
>Even if it were true, a transistorised longwave transmitter is not much
>of an engineering challenge these days.

Engineering probably no problem, but cost wise it is off the scale. Why spend a
few million quid on a transmitter that will last for half a century when you can
have shite like 'The Voice' for a year or two at five times the price.

'all because of the unique way the bbc is funded'


--

[MB]

On 03/09/2013 06:52, Bill Wright wrote:
> Why all this shite? I got a watch off Donny Market for two quid that
> tells me the time and never needs putting right.

Reminds me of the classic Spike Milligan joke!

[MB]

On 03/09/2013 07:18, tony sayer wrote:
> Might be the best bet to make clocks work off timing signals embedded in
> mobile phone systems most all of them are receivable over the UK for the
> longer term?...

Which mobile phone system? I am sure the mobile companies will get
bored with GSM at some point. Much better to rely on a broadcast system
with wide coverage.

They are certainly not receivable all over the UK.

[MB]

On 03/09/2013 07:22, tony sayer wrote:
> I have seen it in the past for paging transmitters but they shut that
> network down some time ago now...

I haven't checked recently but thought it was just BT that should down
its paging network. Many people and organisations still use them.

[MB]

On 03/09/2013 10:55, Stephen wrote:
> It would not be too hard but radio clocks are made overseas and sold
> internationally for the US market and European markets as well as the UK.
> They are designed primarily to receive the very similar 60 kHz transmissions
> to the US from WWVB Colorado, and the 77.5 kHz transmissions to Europe from
> DCF Germany. Manufacturing non-standard clocks for the UK might not be
> economical.

I have one that will work on MSF, DCF77 or WWVB but you cannot set an
offset so cannot run on DCF77 and display UK time, only Berlin Time.

[MB]

On 03/09/2013 11:47, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Yep but if the BBC can't get the valves...
>
> Do you really believe that?
>
> Even if it were true, a transistorised longwave transmitter is not much
> of an engineering challenge these days.
>
>

I don't think they have said that it could not be re-engineered just
that it would not be worth the cost for the small number of listeners
using Long Wave.

[Richard Evans]

On 03/09/2013 07:18, tony sayer wrote:

>>>

>> Yes I know that it is significantly more complicated to receive the time
>> signal from Radio 4 LW, but we live in a time when microelectronics are
>> cheap, so would it really be hard to build a cheap receiver? Also, the
>> Radio 4 signal is used to switch electric meters. I'm pretty sure that
>> my Economy 7 meter uses one. So surely they aren't that difficult to build.
>
> Yep but if the BBC can't get the valves and it seems what to shut down
> the LW service???

Yes, but part of my point was that they could use the same (or similar)
system to add time signals to some of the MW signals. Hence effectivly
creating fill in repeaters.

>
> Might be the best bet to make clocks work off timing signals embedded in
> mobile phone systems most all of them are receivable over the UK for the
> longer term?...

Perhaps. Assuming that doesn't mean people are required to pay a
subscription to use their clocks.

[Richard Evans]

I freely admit that spelling isn't of of my strong points, and that one
isn't an especially easy one to remember.

[Roderick Stewart]

And yet, a computer can be set to use any convenient NTP server and
any time zone you please, so if this is a problem it's evidently one
that can be solved - provided somebody wants to of course.

Rod.

[Richard Evans]

On 03/09/2013 10:55, Stephen wrote:
>

> I think it would help everyone. Your idea of phase reversing the carrier on
> the fill in transmitter once a minute is a good one and would solve the
> problem.

Although not necessarily a 180 degree reversal. It might be worth a bit
of experimenting to see what short of shift would work best. I'm
thinking perhaps a 120 degree shift, so that there would be a good
chance that the 2 signals would strongly reinforce each other at at
least some point.

Also I still think it would be a bad idea to put the transmitter on a
building, I think it should be somewhere a reasonable distance from
where people live and work. Perhaps Crystal Palace, or perhaps one of
the existing MW sites. Apparently there is a T aerial at Brookhams Park
used to transmit Virgin and Sunrise, I wonder if it would be possible to
install some combining device to add a 60Khz transmission to this aerial.

>
> It would not be too hard but radio clocks are made overseas and sold
> internationally for the US market and European markets as well as the UK.
> They are designed primarily to receive the very similar 60 kHz transmissions
> to the US from WWVB Colorado, and the 77.5 kHz transmissions to Europe from
> DCF Germany. Manufacturing non-standard clocks for the UK might not be
> economical.

Well that is a point.
It may be more expensive to build receivers just for the UK.
Although perhaps some people might be willing to pay a bit extra for a
more reliable service, if it were available. Presumably the sort of
people who buy radio clocks are not looking for the cheapest solution,
otherwise why wouldn't they just buy a cheap quartz clock.

Perhaps it might be a good solution to put a repeater somewhere in the
South East, and change the phase every minute. Although I don't think
they would be allowed to use The Shard as an aerial. I think they would
have to install something at a dedicated low frequency broadcasting site.

Richard E.

[tony sayer]

In article <qcednaUbUKj7T7jP...@bt.com>, MB
<M...@nospam.nospam> scribeth thus

>On 03/09/2013 07:18, tony sayer wrote:
>> Might be the best bet to make clocks work off timing signals embedded in
>> mobile phone systems most all of them are receivable over the UK for the
>> longer term?...
>
>
>Which mobile phone system? I am sure the mobile companies will get
>bored with GSM at some point. Much better to rely on a broadcast system
>with wide coverage.
>

Well it seems that GSM isn't being switched off anytime soon..

>They are certainly not receivable all over the UK.

I bet that mobile coverage, all networks, is better then Anthorn
coverage in practice..
>
>

--
Tony Sayer

[tony sayer]

In article <qcednaQbUKhXT7jP...@bt.com>, MB
<M...@nospam.nospam> scribeth thus

It was sold off to Cellnet by BT, and yes it shut down some Six odd
years ago IIRC. Page one and Vodapage are still operational and another
network who's name escapes me now...

--
Tony Sayer

[Mark Carver]

;-)

[MB]

On 03/09/2013 19:11, Mark Carver wrote:
> charles wrote:
>> In article <b8lh6a...@mid.individual.net>,
>> Mark Carver <mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> I always carry a card in my wallet with the present time written on
>>> it, just in case.
>>
>> I didn't know your name was Neddie
>
> ;-)
>
>

Eccles surely?

[Mark Carver]

Actually yes, I think it was Eccles talking to Neddie ?

[Dave Liquorice]

On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 09:20:51 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe wrote:

>> Nope//apart from you can't put it 5 mins fast;!..
>
> What's the point of a clock that is *never* right? Even a stopped one is
> right twice a day.
>
>> Do all females do this or is it just the specimen I have;?...
>
> It's not just yours. The subject cropped up with a female colleague a
> couple of weeks ago and she did the same thing.

Mine used to, drove me batty as the main living room clock was set +5
mins and others correct. So you'd check the time on something
correct, wander down to the living room and be (apparently) 5 mins
late just by walking down the stairs!

These days I'm the one who resets the clocks they get set correctly,
don't care what time she has on her watch...

--
Cheers
Dave.

[Dave Liquorice]

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 18:39:25 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

> I bet that mobile coverage, all networks, is better then Anthorn
> coverage in practice..

Not here. I divert the mobile to the landline when at home as the
mobile signal is crap to non-existant indoors in most of the house.
Unless you are up stairs by a window on the side facing the (note
singular) cell site.

There are huge areas that have very poor outside mobile coverage, as
the companies only put cells in where there are people to use them. I
should imagine that Anthorn covers *all* of Scotland, the "desolate
NE", the wilds of Cumbria and Pennines very well. Areas that have
little or no mobile coverage once you get away from the towns.

--
Cheers
Dave.

[Dave Liquorice]

On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 22:44:30 +0100, charles wrote:

>>> In a domestic environment, is anything more accurate than a 10
quid
>>> 50Hz mains locked clock really required ?

If you can find one that is mains locked and not just a mains powered
quartz crystal jobbie.

>> Never seen one that adjusted itself between Winter and Summer time

>> automatically.
>
> I did have a Grundig clock/radio that had a suumer/winter time button.

Our CH stat has a summer/winter switch, but's some convulted
combination button push, it's almost quicker to just reset the time.
B-)

>> Most alarm clocks are battery powered.
>
> The one on my wife's side of the bed is mains operated. Mine is a DAB
> radio plus alarm again runs off mains.

But are either mains locked?

--
Cheers
Dave.

[Stephen]

"Richard Evans" <rp.evan...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message

news:l0554f$bk3$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> On 03/09/2013 10:55, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> I think it would help everyone. Your idea of phase reversing the carrier
>> on
>> the fill in transmitter once a minute is a good one and would solve the
>> problem.
> Although not necessarily a 180 degree reversal. It might be worth a bit of
> experimenting to see what short of shift would work best. I'm thinking
> perhaps a 120 degree shift, so that there would be a good chance that the
> 2 signals would strongly reinforce each other at at least some point.
>
> Also I still think it would be a bad idea to put the transmitter on a
> building, I think it should be somewhere a reasonable distance from where
> people live and work. Perhaps Crystal Palace, or perhaps one of the
> existing MW sites. Apparently there is a T aerial at Brookhams Park used
> to transmit Virgin and Sunrise, I wonder if it would be possible to
> install some combining device to add a 60Khz transmission to this aerial.

It certainly would be possible, although there would have to be a lot of
extra filters to prevent cross modulation if it was at an existing MF site.
(i.e. we don't want 909 kHz Radio 5 plus and minus 60 kHz = 969 and 849
kHz)

>> It would not be too hard but radio clocks are made overseas and sold
>> internationally for the US market and European markets as well as the UK.
>> They are designed primarily to receive the very similar 60 kHz
>> transmissions
>> to the US from WWVB Colorado, and the 77.5 kHz transmissions to Europe
>> from
>> DCF Germany. Manufacturing non-standard clocks for the UK might not be
>> economical.
>
> Well that is a point.
> It may be more expensive to build receivers just for the UK.
> Although perhaps some people might be willing to pay a bit extra for a
> more reliable service, if it were available. Presumably the sort of people
> who buy radio clocks are not looking for the cheapest solution, otherwise
> why wouldn't they just buy a cheap quartz clock.
>
> Perhaps it might be a good solution to put a repeater somewhere in the
> South East, and change the phase every minute. Although I don't think they
> would be allowed to use The Shard as an aerial. I think they would have to
> install something at a dedicated low frequency broadcasting site.
>
> Richard E.

They're builing a new eLoran navigation transmitter in the Tilbury, Medway,
Thames Estuary area in the next few years. This would make an excellent site
for an MSF filler to make the radio clocks in London work again. (Perhaps
they should call it MSG !) This will have an antenna made for LF (100 kHz).
There is an existing eLoran transmitter at Anthorn shared with MSF, so there
should be no problem doing the same thing again here.

[Richard Evans]

On 04/09/2013 11:33, Stephen wrote:

>
> They're builing a new eLoran navigation transmitter in the Tilbury, Medway,
> Thames Estuary area in the next few years. This would make an excellent site
> for an MSF filler to make the radio clocks in London work again. (Perhaps
> they should call it MSG !)

Yes that sounds like a good site, and if they used a few Kw, then that
should generate a good signal over London.

> This will have an antenna made for LF (100 kHz).
> There is an existing eLoran transmitter at Anthorn shared with MSF, so there
> should be no problem doing the same thing again here.

Looking a Wikipedia it is a bit vague about which aerials at Anthorn are
used for which signals.

http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/anthorn.php
"The antenna system consists of thirteen masts, each 227 metres (745 ft)
tall, which are arranged in two rings around the central mast. The VLF
antenna consists of four rhombic antennas hung on large insulators on
the masts, which are all grounded.

The LF antenna is a T-antenna spun between two masts."

So I would interpret that as the 13 towers being erected for the
submarine communications system (which is VLF), and then a T aerial
conveniently making use of 2 of those towers for eLoran and MSN (which
is LF). Although I could be reading this wrong.

Richard E

[Richard Evans]

On 04/09/2013 17:05, Richard Evans wrote:
> and then a T aerial
> conveniently making use of 2 of those towers for eLoran and MSN (which
> is LF). Although I could be reading this wrong.

My mistake, that should be MSF.