I've been thinking about building a WWVB (time code on 60kHz) receiver, and
wanted to get some suggestions for the architecture. Poking around the web
some, I did find one receiver where the guy built a synchronous detector
using a PLL and VCXO to phase-lock to the 60kHz carrier. Nice idea --
especially since he wanted the 60kHz carrier as a synchronization signal.
However, I just want the time data... so... wouldn't it be easier to build a
mixer at, e.g., 59kHz and then use an envelope detector to get a loud/quiet
audible (1kHz) tone (WWVB reduces power by 10dB to signify 0 bits in its
time code)? It seems to me that this approach avoids the need for the PLL
and VCXO, which is a nice 'reduction' in complexity. Also, since I'll have
a microcontroller around to decode the time code anyway, it can easily
generate the 59kHz signal.

Thanks,
---Joel Kolstad

Joel Kolstad wrote:

I've been thinking about building a WWVB (time code on 60kHz) receiver, and
wanted to get some suggestions for the architecture. Poking around the web
some, I did find one receiver where the guy built a synchronous detector
using a PLL and VCXO to phase-lock to the 60kHz carrier. Nice idea --
especially since he wanted the 60kHz carrier as a synchronization signal.
However, I just want the time data... so... wouldn't it be easier to build a
mixer at, e.g., 59kHz and then use an envelope detector to get a loud/quiet
audible (1kHz) tone (WWVB reduces power by 10dB to signify 0 bits in its
time code)? It seems to me that this approach avoids the need for the PLL
and VCXO, which is a nice 'reduction' in complexity. Also, since I'll have
a microcontroller around to decode the time code anyway, it can easily
generate the 59kHz signal.

Thanks,
---Joel Kolstad

I think you will need a receiver with a narrow band pass. The phase locked
scheme can help you get a very narrow band pass.

Another arrangement is use the 1 Khz as you planned and use a FFT program to
get the signal out of the noise..

And maybe, at your location, the signal is strong enough that my concerns
do not apply.

Bill K7NOM

Joel Kolstad wrote:

I've been thinking about building a WWVB (time code on 60kHz) receiver, and
wanted to get some suggestions for the architecture. Poking around the web
some, I did find one receiver where the guy built a synchronous detector
using a PLL and VCXO to phase-lock to the 60kHz carrier. Nice idea --
especially since he wanted the 60kHz carrier as a synchronization signal.
However, I just want the time data... so... wouldn't it be easier to build a
mixer at, e.g., 59kHz and then use an envelope detector to get a loud/quiet
audible (1kHz) tone (WWVB reduces power by 10dB to signify 0 bits in its
time code)? It seems to me that this approach avoids the need for the PLL
and VCXO, which is a nice 'reduction' in complexity. Also, since I'll have
a microcontroller around to decode the time code anyway, it can easily
generate the 59kHz signal.

Thanks,
---Joel Kolstad

I think you will need a receiver with a narrow band pass. The phase locked
scheme can help you get a very narrow band pass.

Another arrangement is use the 1 Khz as you planned and use a FFT program to
get the signal out of the noise..

And maybe, at your location, the signal is strong enough that my concerns
do not apply.

Bill K7NOM

I played with that many, many moons ago. The bugaboo is local noise --
QRM from all kinds of devices running from mains power, switching,
arcing, and sparking. The noise was lower late at night when more
gadgets were off, which I'm sure is why the automatic clocks you can get
now do their synchronizing late at night. So I suggest looking at each
architechture for its noise immunity and how it responds when it does
get a burst of noise. Absolute minimum bandwidth is an advantage from a
noise standpoint, as long as it's not so narrow that it rings for too
long when hit with an impulse. A PLL with long loop time constant might
be a good idea, since it should maintain synchronization through a noise
burst. Other than those generalities, I don't have much to offer. I
built up a simple receiver long ago that allowed me to see the binary
code on a scope, but only late at night. I never pursued perfecting it
to the point where it would be reliable. WWVB increased its power
between then and now, but it's probably still not a piece of cake.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Joel Kolstad wrote:
I've been thinking about building a WWVB (time code on 60kHz) receiver, and
wanted to get some suggestions for the architecture. Poking around the web
some, I did find one receiver where the guy built a synchronous detector
using a PLL and VCXO to phase-lock to the 60kHz carrier. Nice idea --
especially since he wanted the 60kHz carrier as a synchronization signal.
However, I just want the time data... so... wouldn't it be easier to build a
mixer at, e.g., 59kHz and then use an envelope detector to get a loud/quiet
audible (1kHz) tone (WWVB reduces power by 10dB to signify 0 bits in its
time code)? It seems to me that this approach avoids the need for the PLL
and VCXO, which is a nice 'reduction' in complexity. Also, since I'll have
a microcontroller around to decode the time code anyway, it can easily
generate the 59kHz signal.

Thanks,
---Joel Kolstad

I played with that many, many moons ago. The bugaboo is local noise --
QRM from all kinds of devices running from mains power, switching,
arcing, and sparking. The noise was lower late at night when more
gadgets were off, which I'm sure is why the automatic clocks you can get
now do their synchronizing late at night. So I suggest looking at each
architechture for its noise immunity and how it responds when it does
get a burst of noise. Absolute minimum bandwidth is an advantage from a
noise standpoint, as long as it's not so narrow that it rings for too
long when hit with an impulse. A PLL with long loop time constant might
be a good idea, since it should maintain synchronization through a noise
burst. Other than those generalities, I don't have much to offer. I
built up a simple receiver long ago that allowed me to see the binary
code on a scope, but only late at night. I never pursued perfecting it
to the point where it would be reliable. WWVB increased its power
between then and now, but it's probably still not a piece of cake.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Joel Kolstad wrote:
I've been thinking about building a WWVB (time code on 60kHz) receiver, and
wanted to get some suggestions for the architecture. Poking around the web
some, I did find one receiver where the guy built a synchronous detector
using a PLL and VCXO to phase-lock to the 60kHz carrier. Nice idea --
especially since he wanted the 60kHz carrier as a synchronization signal.
However, I just want the time data... so... wouldn't it be easier to build a
mixer at, e.g., 59kHz and then use an envelope detector to get a loud/quiet
audible (1kHz) tone (WWVB reduces power by 10dB to signify 0 bits in its
time code)? It seems to me that this approach avoids the need for the PLL
and VCXO, which is a nice 'reduction' in complexity. Also, since I'll have
a microcontroller around to decode the time code anyway, it can easily
generate the 59kHz signal.

Thanks,
---Joel Kolstad

Roy Lewallen wrote:

I played with that many, many moons ago. The bugaboo is local noise --
QRM from all kinds of devices running from mains power, switching,
arcing, and sparking. The noise was lower late at night when more
gadgets were off, which I'm sure is why the automatic clocks you can get
now do their synchronizing late at night. So I suggest looking at each
architechture for its noise immunity and how it responds when it does
get a burst of noise. Absolute minimum bandwidth is an advantage from a
noise standpoint, as long as it's not so narrow that it rings for too
long when hit with an impulse. A PLL with long loop time constant might
be a good idea, since it should maintain synchronization through a noise
burst. Other than those generalities, I don't have much to offer. I
built up a simple receiver long ago that allowed me to see the binary
code on a scope, but only late at night. I never pursued perfecting it
to the point where it would be reliable. WWVB increased its power
between then and now, but it's probably still not a piece of cake.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Joel Kolstad wrote:
I've been thinking about building a WWVB (time code on 60kHz) receiver, and
wanted to get some suggestions for the architecture. Poking around the web
some, I did find one receiver where the guy built a synchronous detector
using a PLL and VCXO to phase-lock to the 60kHz carrier. Nice idea --
especially since he wanted the 60kHz carrier as a synchronization signal.
However, I just want the time data... so... wouldn't it be easier to build a
mixer at, e.g., 59kHz and then use an envelope detector to get a loud/quiet
audible (1kHz) tone (WWVB reduces power by 10dB to signify 0 bits in its
time code)? It seems to me that this approach avoids the need for the PLL
and VCXO, which is a nice 'reduction' in complexity. Also, since I'll have
a microcontroller around to decode the time code anyway, it can easily
generate the 59kHz signal.

Thanks,
---Joel Kolstad



I get a good signal into central Florida these days. I could barely
pick them up before they replaced their antennas and upgraded the
transmitters. I could pick up the harmonics of the horizontal sweep of a
TV set over a half mile away, but WWVB was so weak it was wiped out by
power line noise and other VLF noise. Temic makes a single chip
reciever/decoder, but I don't know if it is available in small
quantities. I have the data sheets, but I have to look for them.
--


Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Roy Lewallen wrote:

I played with that many, many moons ago. The bugaboo is local noise --
QRM from all kinds of devices running from mains power, switching,
arcing, and sparking. The noise was lower late at night when more
gadgets were off, which I'm sure is why the automatic clocks you can get
now do their synchronizing late at night. So I suggest looking at each
architechture for its noise immunity and how it responds when it does
get a burst of noise. Absolute minimum bandwidth is an advantage from a
noise standpoint, as long as it's not so narrow that it rings for too
long when hit with an impulse. A PLL with long loop time constant might
be a good idea, since it should maintain synchronization through a noise
burst. Other than those generalities, I don't have much to offer. I
built up a simple receiver long ago that allowed me to see the binary
code on a scope, but only late at night. I never pursued perfecting it
to the point where it would be reliable. WWVB increased its power
between then and now, but it's probably still not a piece of cake.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Joel Kolstad wrote:
I've been thinking about building a WWVB (time code on 60kHz) receiver, and
wanted to get some suggestions for the architecture. Poking around the web
some, I did find one receiver where the guy built a synchronous detector
using a PLL and VCXO to phase-lock to the 60kHz carrier. Nice idea --
especially since he wanted the 60kHz carrier as a synchronization signal.
However, I just want the time data... so... wouldn't it be easier to build a
mixer at, e.g., 59kHz and then use an envelope detector to get a loud/quiet
audible (1kHz) tone (WWVB reduces power by 10dB to signify 0 bits in its
time code)? It seems to me that this approach avoids the need for the PLL
and VCXO, which is a nice 'reduction' in complexity. Also, since I'll have
a microcontroller around to decode the time code anyway, it can easily
generate the 59kHz signal.

Thanks,
---Joel Kolstad



I get a good signal into central Florida these days. I could barely
pick them up before they replaced their antennas and upgraded the
transmitters. I could pick up the harmonics of the horizontal sweep of a
TV set over a half mile away, but WWVB was so weak it was wiped out by
power line noise and other VLF noise. Temic makes a single chip
reciever/decoder, but I don't know if it is available in small
quantities. I have the data sheets, but I have to look for them.
--


Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

"Roy" =3D=3D Roy Lewallen writes:

Roy The noise was lower late at night when more gadgets were off,
Roy which I'm sure is why the automatic clocks you can get now do
Roy their synchronizing late at night.

I thought the reason they sync'ed at night was because of propagation.

Interesting.

Jack.
=2D --=20
Jack Twilley
jmt at twilley dot org
http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE/fwD0GPFSfAB/ezgRAs6KAKDl0S2jpSp3c2dj3t3oTrBWE0Cu1ACfdAdd
+727zTdcOuw33tvjSsP/6rE=3D
=3DLHM4
=2D----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

"Roy" =3D=3D Roy Lewallen writes:

Roy The noise was lower late at night when more gadgets were off,
Roy which I'm sure is why the automatic clocks you can get now do
Roy their synchronizing late at night.

I thought the reason they sync'ed at night was because of propagation.

Interesting.

Jack.
=2D --=20
Jack Twilley
jmt at twilley dot org
http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE/fwD0GPFSfAB/ezgRAs6KAKDl0S2jpSp3c2dj3t3oTrBWE0Cu1ACfdAdd
+727zTdcOuw33tvjSsP/6rE=3D
=3DLHM4
=2D----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Roy Lewallen wrote:

I played with that many, many moons ago. The bugaboo is local noise --
QRM from all kinds of devices running from mains power, switching,
arcing, and sparking. The noise was lower late at night when more
gadgets were off, which I'm sure is why the automatic clocks you can get
now do their synchronizing late at night. So I suggest looking at each
architechture for its noise immunity and how it responds when it does
get a burst of noise. Absolute minimum bandwidth is an advantage from a
noise standpoint, as long as it's not so narrow that it rings for too
long when hit with an impulse. A PLL with long loop time constant might
be a good idea, since it should maintain synchronization through a noise
burst. Other than those generalities, I don't have much to offer. I
built up a simple receiver long ago that allowed me to see the binary
code on a scope, but only late at night. I never pursued perfecting it
to the point where it would be reliable. WWVB increased its power
between then and now, but it's probably still not a piece of cake.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Joel Kolstad wrote:
I've been thinking about building a WWVB (time code on 60kHz) receiver, and
wanted to get some suggestions for the architecture. Poking around the web
some, I did find one receiver where the guy built a synchronous detector
using a PLL and VCXO to phase-lock to the 60kHz carrier. Nice idea --
especially since he wanted the 60kHz carrier as a synchronization signal.
However, I just want the time data... so... wouldn't it be easier to build a
mixer at, e.g., 59kHz and then use an envelope detector to get a loud/quiet
audible (1kHz) tone (WWVB reduces power by 10dB to signify 0 bits in its
time code)? It seems to me that this approach avoids the need for the PLL
and VCXO, which is a nice 'reduction' in complexity. Also, since I'll have
a microcontroller around to decode the time code anyway, it can easily
generate the 59kHz signal.

Thanks,
---Joel Kolstad



I would suggest using a shielded loop antenna to help with the local noise
problem.
The loop is directional so it could be oriented to reduce at least one source of
noise.

Bill K7NOM