Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.96.198 with SMTP id du6csp106912igb; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 02:23:03 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.180.187.41 with SMTP id fp9mr1658711wic.33.1386325382977; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 02:23:02 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id ll10si12518717wjb.24.2013.12.06.02.23.02 for ; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 02:23:02 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) client-ip=195.171.43.25; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) smtp.mail=owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; dkim=pass header.i=@mx.aol.com Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Vos4i-0000LU-UM for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 09:51:56 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Vos4i-0000LL-26 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 09:51:56 +0000 Received: from omr-d10.mx.aol.com ([205.188.108.134]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Vos4f-0003hZ-LS for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 09:51:54 +0000 Received: from mtaout-da05.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaout-da05.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.51.133]) by omr-d10.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 9491E700000BF for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 04:51:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from White (95-91-238-155-dynip.superkabel.de [95.91.238.155]) by mtaout-da05.r1000.mx.aol.com (MUA/Third Party Client Interface) with ESMTPA id BEEB3E000206 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 04:51:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: From: "Markus Vester" To: References: <5FBCFC1F826C434E94FBACF3D24866DB@White> Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 10:51:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 12.0.1606 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V12.0.1606 x-aol-global-disposition: G DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20121107; t=1386323510; bh=X6XphhX3TpoNHUiOeoX7Fj2S7g/MwEb60tZin++FXy0=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=cqJOXxrLLF++XNeMyby1Uc50shntLTLpyBE2vn2uBBnHRW8J2JEX7tYXPaMLXviA+ L7iy78U28s9k+EaZhaUNUiYvT4SAQBgGiJplVw6AAT78f4YHGAULAmJVnoB8UOTq5Q 4xZFYKb2C2UfU1COntUfn8ERA1NIRQPthsofXjG0= x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d338552a19e330740 X-AOL-IP: 95.91.238.155 X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hi Bob, thanks for the feedback. At this stage, the cancellation procedure is no more than a proof-of-principle, done in postprocesseng on recorded audio. The purpose was more to check if my theory about the cause of the interference is valid. I can generate a visual spectrogram, but it won't be easy to extend that to a quasi-realtime software plugin which could feed WSPR, Opera or opds. Guess it might be suited for implementation as an FFT filter plugin for SpecLab, but I'd need a crash course in DLL programming before I'd be able to do such a thing ;-) [...] Content analysis details: (0.8 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [205.188.108.134 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (markusvester[at]aol.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.2 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid 1.0 FREEMAIL_REPLY From and body contain different freemails X-Scan-Signature: fefa6d96b1284f767a869566d1bc7791 Subject: Re: LF: Cleaning up DCF77 junk around 74.55 kHz Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_01CEF271.270E06E0" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.9 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE, MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME autolearn=no version=2.63 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 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 2233 Dies ist eine mehrteilige Nachricht im MIME-Format. ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01CEF271.270E06E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Bob, thanks for the feedback. At this stage, the cancellation procedure is no = more than a proof-of-principle, done in postprocesseng on recorded = audio. The purpose was more to check if my theory about the cause of the = interference is valid. I can generate a visual spectrogram, but it won't = be easy to extend that to a quasi-realtime software plugin which could = feed WSPR, Opera or opds. Guess it might be suited for implementation as = an FFT filter plugin for SpecLab, but I'd need a crash course in DLL = programming before I'd be able to do such a thing ;-) I'm also not sure how much DCF77 is currently affecting others. = Spectrograms from Henny and Hartmut have occasionally contained some = similar interference but at much lower level. On the other hand, if = someone located closer to Frankfurt (eg. Stefan or Marco) would attempt = to receive on 74 kHz, they would certainly suffer more than I do. Well once the wind calms (may be Saturday night) I can put my antenna = back up and listen again. I'd be very interested to look for visual = signals from you and Dex one of these nights. Preferably even slower = than QRSS-60, say QRSS-120 or DFCW-180.=20 On the other hand, I can set up either opds-32 or -64 (whichever speed = you prefer), or WSPR on 74.55 kHz. However these would not benefit from = the DCF noise cancellation. Best 73, Markus (DF6NM) PS On 137kHz, last night WE2XEB produced a couple of opds detections = here, despite the low and noisy "summer" receive antenna. Thanks for the = effort to produce such a good signal! From: Bob Raide=20 Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 4:00 AM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Subject: RE: LF: Cleaning up DCF77 junk around 74.55 kHz Markus; That could most certainly improve things for 73 band use. Especially = for those close, as you are to the offending emissions. I am ready to go back to 74 tomorrow anyway. Will continue with QRSS 60 = and 74.5495. =20 Let me know when you might be ready I can also summon Dex for his signal = one hertz away. The interference was not the reason for requesting other modes but was = to introduce something in the way of a new emission for the band. QRSS = has proven it's worth and just wanted to try something else. To do so = with a clearer freq would only help matters-Bob =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- From: markusvester@aol.com To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 00:57:47 +0100 Subject: LF: Cleaning up DCF77 junk around 74.55 kHz I think I have found a way to eliminate interference from the DCF77 = pseudonoise modulation in 74.55 kHz spectrograms. ... ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01CEF271.270E06E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi=20 Bob,
 
thanks for the feedback. At this stage, = the=20 cancellation procedure is no more than a proof-of-principle, done in=20 postprocesseng on recorded audio. The purpose was more to check if=20 my theory about the cause of the interference is valid. I can = generate=20 a visual spectrogram, but it won't be easy to extend that = to a quasi-realtime software plugin which could feed WSPR, = Opera or=20 opds. Guess it might be suited for implementation as = an FFT=20 filter plugin for SpecLab, but I'd need a crash course in DLL = programming before=20 I'd be able to do such a thing ;-)
 
I'm also not sure how much DCF77 = is currently=20 affecting others. Spectrograms from Henny and Hartmut have occasionally=20 contained some similar interference but at much lower level. On the = other hand,=20 if someone located closer to Frankfurt (eg. Stefan or Marco) = would attempt=20 to receive on 74 kHz, they would certainly suffer more than I=20 do.
 
Well once the wind calms (may = be Saturday=20 night) I can put my antenna back up and listen again. I'd be very=20 interested to look for visual signals from you and Dex = one of=20 these nights. Preferably even slower than QRSS-60, say QRSS-120 or = DFCW-180.=20
 
On the other hand, I can set = up either=20 opds-32 or -64 (whichever speed you prefer), or WSPR on 74.55=20 kHz. However these would not benefit from the DCF noise=20 cancellation.
 
Best 73,
Markus (DF6NM)
 
 
PS On 137kHz, last night WE2XEB = produced a=20 couple of opds detections here, despite the low and noisy "summer" = receive=20 antenna. Thanks for the effort to produce such a good=20 signal!
 
 
From:=20 Bob Raide
Sent: Friday, December 06, = 2013 4:00=20 AM
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: RE: LF: Cleaning = up DCF77=20 junk around 74.55 kHz

Markus;
That could most = certainly=20 improve things for 73 band use.  Especially for those close, = as you=20 are to the offending emissions.
I am ready to go back to 74 = tomorrow=20 anyway.  Will continue with QRSS 60 and 74.5495. 
Let me = know when=20 you might be ready I can also summon Dex for his signal=20 one hertz away.
The interference was not the reason for = requesting=20 other modes but was to introduce something in the way of a new emission = for the=20 band.  QRSS has proven it's worth and just wanted to try something=20 else.  To do so with a clearer freq would only help=20 matters-Bob
 
From: = markusvester@aol.com
To:=20 rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk
Date: = Fri, 6=20 Dec 2013 00:57:47 +0100
Subject: LF: Cleaning up DCF77 junk around = 74.55=20 kHz

I think I have found a way=20 to eliminate interference from the DCF77 pseudonoise = modulation=20 in 74.55 kHz spectrograms.
...
------=_NextPart_000_0004_01CEF271.270E06E0--