Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on lipkowski.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 X-Spam-DCC: EATSERVER: mailn 1166; Body=2 Fuz1=2 Fuz2=2 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by lipkowski.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8+deb8u1) with ESMTP id v4UArgSi031729 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 12:53:44 +0200 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1dFeik-0001sH-L9 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 30 May 2017 11:49:50 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1dFeik-0001s8-30 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 30 May 2017 11:49:50 +0100 Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1dFeih-0004zh-Et for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 30 May 2017 11:49:48 +0100 Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C99FC20BC9 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 12:49:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 3wcVjj4VHrz105r for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 12:49:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <592D4E49.1040304@posteo.de> Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 12:49:45 +0200 From: DK7FC 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 References: <579355A36AEE9D4FA555C45D556003AB8FDD9B58@servigilant.vigilant.local> <675856377.119399.1494880952530@connect.xfinity.com> <10bf8134-0330-03c1-c7be-02b6a0391aa3@abelian.org> <1fb38e09-2adf-bdb8-1e28-5064ef604d2c@abelian.org> <17af4668-083c-ea04-9622-dbb1de768f2b@abelian.org> <59233AC1.7040707@posteo.de> <592342DF.2060405@posteo.de> <592467CA.4000604@posteo.de> <1cda44e5-18bc-b346-315a-f838065d8ea4@abelian.org> <592564F7.4060901@posteo.de> <5926ECE3.9030201@posteo.de> <592C1E76.5040103@posteo.de> In-Reply-To: X-Scan-Signature: 1f795a2ee1ecd56682b47ad11969b3d3 Subject: Re: VLF: EbNaut tonite Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.75 Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 11832 Am 29.05.2017 20:02, schrieb Paul Nicholson: > I also tried the amplitude and power normalisation > trick but that didn't improve the result either. I thought a bit about noise cancelling techniques. You recently said that you are using different filter/blanker settings for daytime and nighttime signals. Since you are programming all the software you are using (ufb!, i wish i could do it too :-) ), would it be useful to determine the optimal filter/blanker settings from the signal appearing during the analysis? I mean, can you analyse e.g. QRN bursts (time domain, checking rise time, and peak above average) and then apply an optimal, individual filter which already includes the idea of the power normalisation trick? :-) 73, Stefan