Envelope-to: dave@picks.force9.co.uk
Delivery-date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:08:41 +0000
Message-ID: <000b01c62672$59053ac0$ee9bfea9@oben>
From: "dj9dw" <dj9dw@t-online.de>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <003301c6263d$8c89cee0$0100a8c0@jpmpcportable> <002101c6264f$35250bd0$2201a8c0@pcroelof>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:26:38 +0100
Subject: LF: Re: T/A JAN 31
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit

Hi Roelof and group,
in my location - JO40LE - close to Mainflingen -DCF - I had to increase BW
for better rx-performence. The noise was caused by databursts from that
nearby commercial LF-TX. Narrow band and "good" shape-factor in the
IF-Filters meant tendency to ring. We are in the time-domain with it.
IF-filters with Gaussconfiguration prooved to be much more useful in this my
case.
Facit: the more steady the noise, the more narrow the BW can be choosen.
But yet, never seen any TA so far. We work on it.
Best regards,
Peter, dj9dw

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roelof Bakker" <roelof@ndb.demon.nl>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 11:15 AM
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
>