Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 17:08:58 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jacek Lipkowski <sq5bpf@lipkowski.org>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
In-Reply-To: <58FDFB35.4090808@posteo.de>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1704241643430.6349@mailn.lipkowski.org>
References: <15b9cb3d038-73bd-386c8@webprd-m70.mail.aol.com> <58FDFB35.4090808@posteo.de>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1704241647160.6349@mailn.lipkowski.org>
Subject: Re: LF: Re[2]: VLF: New carrier on 6470.005 Hz
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="17435139-420315999-1493045229=:6349"
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Status: RO

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--17435139-420315999-1493045229=:6349
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-15; FORMAT=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Content-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1704241647161.6349@mailn.lipkowski.org>

Paul receives anything (as usual). But the strange thing is that i can 
receive the 6470Hz signal with a mediocre setup (suboptimal antenna, qrm 
location in the center of Warsaw) at 900km, while Eddie (at 750km 
distance) and especially Markus (at 180km) can't receive.

The only other explanation (apart from lower qrm levels) might be the 
software used. I use Paul's vlfrx-tools, while Eddie and Markus use 
Spectrum Lab. The obvious differences are:

- gps timing (edge in speclab vs "stretched pulse" magic in 
vlfrx-tools). not sure what impact this may have

- noise blanker. most speclab setups use the noiseblanker on the whole 
spectrum (haven't seen your setup, but this is what most example 
configrations i've seen do), while the vlfrx-tools/ebnaut examples use the 
noiseblanker only on a 3kHz bandwidth segment centered around the rx 
frequency (this could be done with speclab easily too). also the speclab 
noiseblanker algorithm might be a bit different

Maybe try vlfrx-tools and see if there is any difference? And if so, 
tweak speclab to do the same (especially the filtering/noiseblanker 
should be simple)

VY 73

Jacek / SQ5BPF


On Mon, 24 Apr 2017, DK7FC wrote:

> Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 15:18:45 +0200
> From: DK7FC <selberdenken@posteo.de>
> Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
> To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
> Subject: Re: LF: Re[2]: VLF: New carrier on 6470.005 Hz
> 
> Hello Markus, Eddie, Paul,
> 
> Thanks for the feedback, for trying and for the results.
> Very strange. Paul has excellent results (as usual) but no decode for Eddie. On
> 8270 Hz, the 'difference' is much less expressed. Does it have to do with local
> QRM only? Maybe...
> Maybe Alex has detected something.
> 
> Pauls results are particularly interesting. 1+1 = 1 * 2 = 3 dB. Proves the theory
> :-)
> 
> The stacking would help to solve the problems it seems :-) A tool is needed...
> 
> 73, Stefan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am 23.04.2017 23:24, schrieb Markus Vester:
>       Hi Stefan,
> I tried to receive your message on both days, and even added the two
> recordings with equal weight, but unfortunately no decode. Guess I need a
> railway strike :-(
> Unfortunately no luck from DL0AO data either.
> 
> Best 73,
> Markus
> 
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung-----
> Von: DK7FC <selberdenken@posteo.de>
> An: rsgb_lf_group <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> Verschickt: So, 23. Apr 2017 0:42
> Betreff: Re: LF: Re[2]: VLF: New carrier on 6470.005 Hz
> 
> Hi VLF,
> 
> another chance, the same msssage two hours earlier, improved timing towards
> the east...
> 
> 
> f = 6470.100000 Hz
> Start time: 23.Apr.2017   05:00:00 UTC
> Symbol period: 40 s
> Characters: 2
> CRC bits: 32
> Coding 16K21A
> Duration: 11h, 22m, 40s
> Antenna current: 460 mA
> 
> 
> 73, Stefan
> 
> 
>
--17435139-420315999-1493045229=:6349--