Envelope-to: dave@picks.force9.co.uk Delivery-date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 11:40:59 +0000 Received: by ptb-mxcore02.plus.net with spam-scanned (PlusNet MXCore v2.00) id 1F3tsX-0002xU-0m for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 11:40:58 +0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com ([193.82.116.20]) by ptb-mxcore02.plus.net with esmtp (PlusNet MXCore v2.00) id 1F3tsW-0002uI-Ml for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 11:40:56 +0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1F3ts4-0003OX-F3 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 11:40:28 +0000 Received: from [193.82.59.130] (helo=relay2.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1F3ts3-0003OO-R8 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 11:40:27 +0000 Received: from smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com ([217.12.12.138]) by relay2.thorcom.net with smtp (Exim 4.51) id 1F3uZK-0005Bp-IR for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 12:25:12 +0000 Received: (qmail 635 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2006 11:40:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lark) (alan.melia@btinternet.com@213.122.118.50 with login) by smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 31 Jan 2006 11:40:23 -0000 Message-ID: <000001c6265b$200adca0$67b0fea9@lark> From: "Alan Melia" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <003301c6263d$8c89cee0$0100a8c0@jpmpcportable> <002101c6264f$35250bd0$2201a8c0@pcroelof> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 11:15:04 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Subject: LF: Re: T/A JAN 31 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-PN-SpamFiltered: by PlusNet MXCore (v2.00) Hi Roelof, I dont think ARGO "needs" noise, I think it would be fairer to say that the noise should be used to set the "theashold levels". ARGO is very sensitive and it only requires an increase in signal strength of about 4 dB to go from "nothing seen" to "O" report signals. Thus I normally set the sensitivity to show a little "snow" on the screen.....I often saw 30% but that is just a feeling, you need to imagine what a weak signal will look like amongst that noise. There is always the possiblility that added noise can enhance signal visibility by pushing the level over the next digitisation threshold occasionally. If one sets it up for a totally dark screen you may be set too far below threshold to detect a weak signal. As far as RX bandwidth is concerned I find that it makes little diffference if the band is clear of big signals. I have experimented with weak locally injected signals and the IF bandwidth makes no difference to the ease of detection of signals at or around the noise level. If there are strong relatively local signals then it helps avoid cross-mod problems to use a narrower filter. I use a pair of AOR 7030s and both have Collins 300Hz filters installed. Cheers de Alan G3NYK ----- Original Message ----- From: Roelof Bakker To: Sent: 31 January 2006 10:15 Subject: LF: T/A JAN 31 > Hello all, > > Last night I tried ARGO. > The band started very noisy, but I got captures of WD2XKO and WD2XGJ. > VO1NA appeared later. > > I have heard rumours that ARGO and SpecLab need some background noise to > compare the signals against and hence should work better with a (relative) > wider bandwidth. > At present, I am using a 12 Hz bandwidth and both programs seem to work > fine. > Can anyone shed some light on this? > > Thank you in advance, > > Roelof Bakker, pa0rdt >