Talk:Loran-C

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Military history: Technology C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

Apologies

I would like to make initial apologies to the original contributor of the article. I found the information in there arcane and at an unaccessible level for a general encyclopedia. I also found some bits that seemed inaccurate (for example, the original claimed that equal TD occurs along the BLL -- actually, it occurs along a line perpendicular to the BLL intersecting at the midpoint between stations).

I'd also like to make apologies for the diagram I uploaded. It is extremely crude and inaccurate (basically, the curves are not hyperbolas as they should be), but IMO it does get the point across.

I went looking for images of a LORAN station and the used images from the first website I could find -- Malone Station.

Lastly, I know that the article could have much more added to it: more info on receivers, notes about "correction factors", a note about multi-tasking stations (i.e. stations which serve as secondary and/or master and/or both in more than one chain, aka "dual-rated"), the longevity of LORAN-C in a world gone almost completely over to GPS, current LORAN-C advocacy, eLORAN and digital LORAN, more detail on LORAN-A, history of LORAN rooted in WWII.... come to mind.

-- [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler Apologie[flame]]] 00:46, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Acronym

The LORAN acronym is actually LOng Range Aids to Navigation. —This unsigned comment was added by 147.240.236.9 (talk • contribs) .

According to the US Coast Guard's 1992 LORAN Handbook, Chapter 1, "LORAN is an acronym for long-range navigation."[1]. (PD-US-GOV) I would assume, since they are the operator of LORAN in the USA, they would know what it is called. --Dual Freq 23:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the Omega_Navigation_System link does not reference the correct article -- Robert Manning

Goniometer (Transmitters and antennas section)

The link to Goniometer seems to refer to a completely different item to anything which could be connected with a loading coil which passes high power to an antenna. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.2.202.178 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 7 September 2006

Accuracy?

Article should mention what amount of accuracy can be depended upon. Can you plot your location within, say, 10 meters with a modern LORAN receiver? Tempshill 18:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That might refer to the test in Alaska, where WAAS type corrections were transmitted via LORAN and used as a backup for WAAS, at high latitudes.[2] It doesn't look like it will be implemented, but it offers an interesting use for the system in an area where geosynchronous satellites are low on the horizon. That would mean that regular GPS would be less accurate than GPS + WAAS corrections sent via LORAN. Beyond that, I'm not sure I can help or provide a citation. --Dual Freq 00:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Height of LORAN-C towers

Please find out the height of antenna towers used for LORAN-C transmission. If they are taller than 300 metres respectively 350 metres, than add them please to List of masts and List of world's tallest structures. In both tables, there are already entrances for the station of Port Clarence at Alaska and the former LORAN-C transmitter Hellissandur on Iceland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.49.85.15 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 16 November 2006

Backup antennas

Is it possible to use backup antennas, while doing maintenance on the main antenna, without enlarging the error of position? Is it possible to tell the receiver that a backup antenna at another location is being used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.49.218.196 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 29 November 2006

Dissertation "New Potential of Low-Frequency Radionavigation in the 21st Century"

I have recently defended my Ph.D. dissertation "New Potential of Low-Frequency Radionavigation in the 21st Century". This dissertation gives an in depth discussion of the potential usage of enhanced Loran, or "eLoran", as a backup for GNSS position and time. Among other thins, the dissertation contains detailed analysis of various measurement campaigns (chapter 6), thereby providing insight in the capabilities of modern low-frequency radionavigation. The dissertation is available online at my website Wouter Pelgrum 130.161.82.199 17:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbolic navigation

Hyperbolic navigation (LORAN, OMEGA, ...)--84.137.35.212 14:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

eLoran content to incorporate

Began improvements to the eLORAN section. There is quite a bit that could be added here:

I know that there is a good article somewhere showing the failure modes of LORAN and GNSS, and shows how one in strong where the other is weak.
The FCC was accepting comments on LORAN, and there was a huge list of comments, many well-written from major cooperations. They can be cited for PROS and CONS.
The eLORAN signal seems to be approaching standardization. Details of how the new signals improve or change LORAN would be good to track down.
US policy / implementation would be a good compliment to the UK implementation.

Thanks! -- Davandron | Talk 15:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loran guided bombs?

Image:Droping Loran Bombs.jpg is captioned "Three Fighter Squadron 161 (VF-161) F-4N Phantom II aircraft from the attack aircraft carrier USS Midway (CVA-41) and three Attack Squadron 86 (VA-86) A-7C Corsair II aircraft from the attack aircraft carrier USS America (CVA-66) drop Loran-guided bombs during a strike mission in March 1973." Maybe someone could expand on that in the article. I'll see what I can do as well. There is a note about tactical Loran-D, for bombers is this the same thing? Were the bombs actually guided by loran or were the aircraft guided to a point by loran then they released unguided bombs similar to Ground Directed Bombing? --Dual Freq (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good find! So, are you thinking this would be an application, or an expansion of a new LORAN-D section? - Davandron | Talk 14:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. With appropriate citations and references, this article would easily qualify as B class if not higher. --dashiellx (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Differences, RE; GEE

I assume that the longer range of LORAN compared to GEE was due to the use of longer wavelength signals?

BTW, one of the original GEE scientists from the Telecommunications Research Establishment (TRE) was sent over to work on what became LORAN, R. J. Dippy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.27 (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed SRD Labs paragraph

It seems to me that the paragraph which singled-out SRD Labs LORAN-A receivers was a pat-on-the-back for the manufacturer, not consistent with the dispassionate view of an encyclopedia. Beyond this, I take exception to the factual basis for the statements in the removed paragraph. I speak as an engineer who helped develop the Digital Marine Electronics Corp. automatic LORAN-A receiver, the Northstar 2000, which was in commerce by the very early 1970s. Shelnh (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you did the right thing - you could have added some information about the Northstar 2000 and modify the style to be more neutral. Sv1xv (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the subject matter of the article is LORAN, I did not see that information about a receiver manufacturer was appropriate. If SRD is included, then all receiver manufacturers should logically be included also. I am not in a position to identify all receiver manuacturers and all their products, which is why I do not feel it appropriate to add info on the Northstar 2000. If a new article on LORAN receivers were started, that would be a _great_ place for SRD to place its information. Shelnh (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

The final paragraph of the "Future of LORAN" section is clearly making a pro-LORAN argument. It uses inline citations, but they are to opinion articles and similar subjective sources. An encyclopedia entry should summarize controversies, not engage in them.