Message-ID: <589F8FFD.6020500@posteo.de>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 23:28:13 +0100
From: DK7FC <selberdenken@posteo.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
CC: Renato Romero <contact@vlf.it>
References: <15a2dba5096-34ef-84f@webprd-a69.mail.aol.com> <08d41fff-f8b0-aecd-1afb-f9e65bcadbe8@abelian.org>
In-Reply-To: <08d41fff-f8b0-aecd-1afb-f9e65bcadbe8@abelian.org>
Subject: Re: ULF: 5 wavelengths on the 101 km band? Valid or not?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Status: RO

Hi Markus, Paul, Eddie, Marco, Jim, Renato,

thanks for the positive feedback.

Am 11.02.2017 15:22, schrieb g3zjo:
>
> I am convinced, but do it again.
>
Yes, i will do it again on another frequency. Hopefully the QRN stays 
low for some time longer. Or i have to add more power! Hmmm, critical, 
maybe.

Am 11.02.2017 16:55, schrieb Paul Nicholson:
> 2970 is the strongest line.  At least 3 sigma, maybe 4,
> depending on how you treat the lumpy floor.  A physicist
> would insist on 5 sigma but the fact that the peak is
> at exactly the right frequency is significant in itself.
>
> Markus just wrote:
>
> > In my humble opinion, this is clearly a successful
> > detection.
>
> I was doubtful looking at the spectrogram but having
> plotted the pixels I am convinced.
>
> Best I can get in Todmorden is 2 and a bit sigma
> using just the daytime signal in 3.9 uHz.  Not
> significant at all.  Would need at least another 7
> days of transmission.
How does that peak look so far, in a spectrum? What happens if you put 
day and night together, maybe with some phase correction?

73, Stefan