Slashdot Mirror


WWVB Celebrates 50 Years of Broadcasting Time

First time accepted submitter doublebackslash writes "On July 5th, WWVB, NIST's timekeeping radio station transmitting near Fort Collins, will celebrate 50 years of continuous operation. Operating at 60kHz, the signal actually follows the curvature of the Earth via a trick of electromagnetics, allowing nearly the entire globe to receive an accurate time signal, which has in recent years reached an accuracy of 1 part in 70 trillion. Recent upgrades, which came in $15.9 million under budget will allow the station to be better received even in large buildings, giving it an edge on timekeeping that not even GPS can touch, with its need for open skies to receive a signal."

29 of 97 comments (clear)

  1. And by ArchieBunker · · Score: 3, Informative

    It also operates at 5MHz, 10MHz, 15MHz, and 20MHz.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:And by Telecommando · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, that's WWV on those frequencies.

      --
      Beta sux! Join the Slashcott! http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4760465&cid=46173047
    2. Re: And by jrmcferren · · Score: 4, Informative

      WWVH also operates on those frequencies. It is possible to hear both at the same time with good conditions and a good antenna. As a user of HF spectrum this is a valuable resource.

      --
      sudo mod me up
    3. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      .. and the programming seems way too predictable.

  2. You'd by JustOK · · Score: 5, Funny

    You'd think they'd be a bit more accurate than just "On July 5th"

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  3. I implemented a teensy WWCB transmitter once by Clueless+Moron · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Some 15 years ago, when they were at their original low power, my area was so fringe that my fancy new WWVB wristwatch just wouldn't pick it up.

    The protocol is really quite straightforward and well documented at their site. The 60kHz signal sends binary by sending either full power or a bit less (I forget how many dB). I used a computer synced with NTP and a plain old soundcard generating 60kHz from a sound card into an audio amp, and I just did either full on or full off. The output ran into a big coil that I had wound to be roughly resonant around 60kHz.

    Much to my amazement, it worked. So I just kept the watch near that coil overnight and it synced perfectly, until WWVB cranked up their power at which point I retired the mess.

    1. Re:I implemented a teensy WWCB transmitter once by tjp · · Score: 2

      How did you manage to have a "plain old soundcard" that could put out 60kHz? Since human hearing tops out at 20kHz, standard sound cards have a maximum sampling rate of 48kHz, so there's no way you could get more than 24kHz out of that. Perhaps whatever aliased frequency did come out happened to produce enough resonance at 60kHz to satisfy the receiver?

    2. Re:I implemented a teensy WWCB transmitter once by Clueless+Moron · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This one could, and I don't claim to know why. But I saw it clearly on my oscilloscope: 60kHz.

      Actually it wasn't exactly 60kHz, it was 59 point something because of quantization according to a frequency counter, but apparently it was close enough to keep the watch happy.

    3. Re:I implemented a teensy WWCB transmitter once by denelson83 · · Score: 2

      The power reduction is 17 dB.

  4. Nearly the entire globe- except not really by markdavis · · Score: 4, Informative

    >"Operating at 60kHz, the signal actually follows the curvature of the Earth via a trick of electromagnetics, allowing nearly the entire globe to receive an accurate time signal"

    Except it doesn't. It depends on time of day, weather, season, exact location, how much local interference, building construction, elevation, and many other factors.

    I really WISH it were as strong and wonderful as implied in the summary, but it is not. I have used radio controlled, WWVB clocks for many years and one thing they are NOT is "reliable", at least not where I live. Of the dozens of clocks I have used over 20+ years, NONE of them could get a reliable signal anywhere I have lived in the Mid Atlantic coast of the USA.

    I am lucky to have it sync several nights in a row and then go weeks without a signal (sometimes even a month). Unfortunately, none of the clocks I have seen will store a step adjustment, so they drift just like any other quartz clock- some are even worse than just a cheap $15 non-radio-controlled clock.

    Having to constantly set and sync clocks on everything (except my computer equipment and SOME of the radio clocks) is really annoying in 2013. With all that freed up VHF TV, why couldn't the government have set aside just a tiny blip that could be used for another time sync that could penetrate buildings and work in the daytime and regardless of weather?

    Oh well. WHEN it works, it is nice.

    1. Re:Nearly the entire globe- except not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem I have is there's no error correction/checksum -- the signal is binary-digit encoded, so it's possible to get a clock that think it's synced but is off by X hours or X minutes or X seconds while otherwise thinking that all is well. This isn't a big problem on smarter systems that continuously monitor the signal but most wall clocks/etc. only check from time to time so they can spend 12 hours thinking it's another time entirely. This isn't incredibly common because the signal is 1 bit per second, so it's pretty robust even at low strength, but it does happen.

      The German version of radio timekeeping includes a checksum to avoid these issues. Then again, their version requires a lot more math to calculate the date, and only uniquely identifies dates within like a 200-year range (which sounds like a long time, but it short enough that you can get into trouble with hard-coded assumptions).

    2. Re:Nearly the entire globe- except not really by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Informative

      Indeed they don't even claim anything close to worldwide coverage themselves. Here are their estimated coverage maps.

    3. Re:Nearly the entire globe- except not really by Ozoner · · Score: 4, Informative

      > It occurs to me that if the signals have almost no chance of reaching China

      As you say it would be trivial for the manufacturer to build a WWVB test generator,

      however there are multiple alternatives to WWVB around the world.
      Many clock chips can switch to an alternative signal if WWVB isn't audible.
      http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/time/lf-clocks/

      FWIW, I can hear WWVB in Australia, although I do need an outside antenna.

    4. Re:Nearly the entire globe- except not really by Jaruzel · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure, that outside of the US, Joe Public doesn't even know WWVB exists, which is a shame as a single standard global time signal (back in the day) would have been kinda cool.

      Here in the UK we have something similar (even runs on the same frequency):

      http://www.npl.co.uk/science-technology/time-frequency/products-and-services/time/msf-radio-time-signal

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

      It's referred to as the 'Rugby clock'.

      -Jar

      --
      Together, We Can Make Slashdot Better. I Do NOT Mod ACs. - Check Me Out
    5. Re:Nearly the entire globe- except not really by Phreakiture · · Score: 2

      There are 12, actually (there is no channel 1) but you are right. There are 8 vacant. I suppose something could be done there, provided some care was taken to ensure that it also didn't interfere in adjoining markets.

      One thought that I've been playing with lately is the idea of putting very narrowbanded signals into channel boundaries. WWVB's signal is extremely narrow banded, having a theoretical nyquist frequency of 0.5 Hz (though the reality is probably a bit broader due to modulating square waves onto the carrier). I suppose you could put something like this on the boundary between channels without it causing too much havoc.

      Channels 2-4 are contiguous; 5 and 6 are adjacent, and channels 7-13 are contiguous. That looks like 9 inter-channel boundaries that could be used for this.

      On a side-note, I am very tired of the misinformation being spread that all digital TV is UHF. It isn't even close. Some folks get this, but instead misunderstand that all digital TV is VHF-high or UHF. That's closer, but still wrong. The only part of the band that has been deprecated is the top of UHF (channels 52-69 were removed), which has been reallocated for two-way usage. That's kind of why I jumped in initially.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
  5. Accuracy... by msauve · · Score: 4, Informative

    WWVB time propagation isn't accurate to 1.4 e-14, as stated. The souce might be, but propagation delays and variability make it so you can get nowhere close to that upon reception. GPS is better in all respects, other than perhaps reception in some particular locations.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:Accuracy... by msauve · · Score: 2

      ntp

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re:Accuracy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The broadcast signal is that accurate. And even the received signal is that precise, given a stationary receiver. So baring multi-path issues (which are detectable) you can do a one-time calibration for your local propagation delay to make your local accuracy match your precision.

      Moreover, they also provide a frequency reference, in addition to the time signal, so you can do your time timekeeping just by counting peaks. Such references are immune to propagation delay (though not to Doppler effects, if your receiver is mobile) as they do not encode specific point-in-time data.

    3. Re:Accuracy... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You do have a point.

      Given that light travels about 0.3 m in one nanosecond, a variation in the signal path-length of about 300 m would induce a smudge on the arrival-times of about a microsecond. Realistic path-length variations could no doubt be larger, and could vary over a time-period of minutes or hours, depending on ionospheric conditions. This would of course be much larger than the inferred time-accuracy of 1.14e-14 s in the single second between each broadcast 'tick'.

      However, GPS is subject to the same vagaries of ionospheric conditions, as well as error in signal-interpretation. It has a theoretical accuracy of 14 ns, but more typically it is 100 ns.

      No doubt the received accuracy of both WWVB and GPS could be improved by frequently collecting and applying the appropriate ephemera corrections for a given geographical location.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    4. Re:Accuracy... by msauve · · Score: 4, Informative

      The claim was "allowing nearly the entire globe to receive an accurate time signal..."

      Even with no path length variation, good luck determining the path length to any specific location to micrometers in order to correct for the delay. Good luck doing so even within 15 meters (50 ns).

      Using long term averaging, one might get frequency accuracy close to the claim, but not time (unless you have a hydrogen maser, I suppose). GPS is the best global time time distribution system available. If you look at BIPM Circular T, even national time labs have a hard time tracking UTC within 100 ns over a month. So, if you get GPS time accurate to 50 ns, (which is base off UTC(USNO), you're doing well.

      The other factor is that the time isn't actually known until after the fact - UTC is a weighted average. UTC(NIST), which is what's being broadcast, can differ by ~4e-8/s (~40 ns) from the actual time, a billion times worse than the claim.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    5. Re:Accuracy... by pe1chl · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For some time I plotted the jitter of reception of DCF-77 (a similar transmitter in Germany) and I found there was a clear cycle of increase and
      decrease of the jitter of the pulses output by my receiver (measured over one minute) over the day.
      At daytime the jitter is around 20us, at nighttime it is more like 200us.
      This is most likely explained by path length variations that apparently are depending on propagation.
      (although texts about such transmitters often boast that there is no propagation effect like the one seen at shortware at those frequencies)

      The claimed accuracy is of course at the source, and maybe when you started receiving WWVB years ago and perform some kind of averaging
      over a long interval, you could eventually get an accuracy like that, but there is no way it can be achieved over short intervals, let alone for
      individual second pulses.

  6. Software Defined Radio & WWVB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So anyone here tried using a software defined radio setup to receive and decode the WWVB signal?

    1. Re:Software Defined Radio & WWVB? by dohzer · · Score: 2

      Exactly what I was wondering. I think you'd need a special devices or add-on module capable of receiving such low frequency signals.

  7. Re:Quotation in summary come from.... (?) by msauve · · Score: 2

    NIST changed the broadcast format to include some phase modulation.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  8. Quite the understatement by nedlohs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    " $15.9 million under budget"

    Sure that'd be be a nice change for some billion dollar government project - to run a little under instead of doubling the budget,

    But this was a budget of $16 million...

  9. WWV and NSA crypto by nsaspook · · Score: 2

    We had several KWR-37 devices that needed time sync to under one second worldside with the transmitting station when changing daily key cards. WWW()x was great until you where some where past SE asia, then we used the Russia time sync RWM to lock devices,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RWM
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KW-37
    http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/uss_pueblo/Section_V_Cryptographic_Damage_Assessment.pdf

    --
    In GOD we trust, all others we monitor.
  10. Re:How Accurate? ... Right by techno-vampire · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The time to receive could be a second or two behind the real time for someone receiving on the far side of the earth.

    No, it can't. The Earth's circumference is about 25,000 miles, which means that nothing can be more than 12,500 miles away by the shortest route. Considering that the speed of light is roughly 186,000 miles/second, the maximum propagation delay is about 67.2 ms.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
  11. Re:I own a clock by jabuzz · · Score: 2

    You don't even need that, you can just use an appropriate ferrite rod and decoder board with a handful of discrete components and hook it up to a serial port.

    http://www.buzzard.me.uk/jonathan/radioclock.html

    It uses what I call the Woz method, aka minimal hardware, do it in software. You will actually get a better result using that method as well because the computer is capturing the timestamps of the signal edges directly without it going through some intermediate process.

    One day I will get around to doing the super noise filtering version using Baysian statistics. Basically the more accurately you already know the time the more you can filter the noise out of the signal.

  12. Syncing Seismographs by mardigras · · Score: 2

    Back in the early 1980's, my group used the Heathkit radios to synchronize portable seismographs. "At the tone, the time will be..."