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 v576ruaS005794 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 08:53:57 +0200 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1dIUmm-0000KC-OK for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 07 Jun 2017 07:49:44 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1dIUml-0000K3-VK for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 07 Jun 2017 07:49:43 +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 1dIUmj-0002zQ-9R for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 07 Jun 2017 07:49:42 +0100 Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDAE420927 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 08:49:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 3wjK0y51Wxzytk for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 08:49:38 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5937A202.2040909@posteo.de> Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 08:49:38 +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: <93ae1c86-9b2e-8313-069f-8b0d941b49c8@abelian.org> <15b0c931d98-7d4f-1e43e@webprd-a90.mail.aol.com> <00d601d2a67b$6e472430$4ad56c90$@comcast.net> <4300a482-e7b9-17c3-5ece-7bfa12b4a352@abelian.org> <696b4e5b-2b63-e5e5-c91c-3b2f78ee9f82@abelian.org> <04ad01d2df2a$7d452670$77cf7350$@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <04ad01d2df2a$7d452670$77cf7350$@comcast.net> X-Scan-Signature: 4ad5f3f1a9241b934aaa5d0e23c9dc57 Subject: Re: LF: DK7FC in Todmorden at 2970 Hz 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: A X-Keywords: X-UID: 11915 Hello Jim, Can you extend that plot to 1E-1...1E1 kHz? 73, Stefan Am 07.06.2017 03:07, schrieb hvanesce@comcast.net: > Paul, > > Thanks for your reply below. In available time I'm trying to verify that FDTD can be helpful for the ULF tests (and vice versa, that the ULF experimental results can validate FDTD for ULF). So far I've found three positive indicators based on Stefan's tests at 2.97 kHz. One indicator is correlation of (a) extrapolated signal strength Cumiana/Todmorden, adjusted for antenna current (and including error margin for estimated sensitivity at Cumiana), with (b) the FDTD characteristics in the attached. For that purpose (particularly for comparing signal strengths extrapolated from SNR at known integration time and estimated receiver sensitivity), should I consider the effective integration time of your 9-day stack of 11-hour segments to be 356400 seconds i.e. bandwidth 2.8 uHz? > > Thanks, > > Jim AA5BW >