CA was in NJ wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Huh? WWVH in Lihue used to come in five and nine everywhere in Hawaii.
On AM car radios, tape recorders, sometimes even rice cookers.

The topic is WWVB, the binary signal. WWVH is the voice signal, which an
autosetting clock will not understand.


Yes, the topic is WWVB, but WWV and WWVH *do* have a digital signal
which can and is decoded by computers and auto-setting clocks.

Tony Calguire wrote:

Yes, the topic is WWVB, but WWV and WWVH *do* have a digital signal
which can and is decoded by computers and auto-setting clocks.

Where can one buy an auto-setting clock that uses the WWV data?

--
John Miller
Email address: domain, n4vu.com; username, jsm

You may have heard that a dean is to faculty as a hydrant is to a dog.
-Alfred Kahn

John Miller ) writes:
Tony Calguire wrote:

Yes, the topic is WWVB, but WWV and WWVH *do* have a digital signal
which can and is decoded by computers and auto-setting clocks.

Where can one buy an auto-setting clock that uses the WWV data?

I don't know.

But, a quarter century ago, it was WWV that got the focus for
self-setting clocks. I thought it was because the HF stations (I know
CHU here in Canada did it too) had provided digital data before WWVB,
but I checked Don Lancaster's TTL Cookbook, from 1974, actually gives
more information about WWVB. I'm sure Don Lancaster detailed an actual
construction article in Radio Electronics around that time, but my memory
says it was for WWV,

Certainly, up until recent times, the one commercial self-setting
clock that comes to mind was a Heathkit, "The World's Most Accurate
Clock", that used WWV.

Using WWVB, at least for consumers, is a relatively recent thing, like
in the past decade. I'm not sure why they moved from WWV to WWVB, but
clearly there is more penetration of WWWV-based clocks than WWV-based
clocks. I bought one for $20 Canadian in February, and that sure beats
any WWV-based clock in terms of cost.

Michael

Michael Black wrote:

I'm not sure why they moved from WWV to WWVB, but
clearly there is more penetration of WWWV-based clocks than WWV-based
clocks.

Reception of WWV on shortwave is not reliable enough. WWVB uses a very
low frequency (VLF) which is not affected by propagation conditions like
shortwave.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

In rec.radio.shortwave on 18 Mar 2004 17:42:42 GMT,
(Michael Black) wrote:

Using WWVB, at least for consumers, is a relatively recent thing, like
in the past decade. I'm not sure why they moved from WWV to WWVB, but
clearly there is more penetration of WWWV-based clocks than WWV-based
clocks. I bought one for $20 Canadian in February, and that sure beats
any WWV-based clock in terms of cost.

The avalance of WWVB-enabled devices (such as the $30.00 wris****ch I'm
wearing) began in earnest after the signal was beefed up (new[er] transmitters,
antenna improvements, etc) in 1997 - 1999. See

http://www.boulder.nist.gov/timefreq/stations/wwvbhistory.htm

mdr