Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1442 invoked from network); 1 Apr 1999 22:15:28 +0100 Received: from magnet.plus.net.uk (HELO magnet.force9.net) (195.166.128.26) by guiness.force9.net with SMTP; 1 Apr 1999 22:15:28 +0100 Received: (qmail 11444 invoked from network); 1 Apr 1999 21:15:50 -0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com (194.75.130.70) by magnet.plus.net.uk with SMTP; 1 Apr 1999 21:15:50 -0000 Received: from troy.blacksheep.org ([194.75.183.50] ident=root) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 2.04 #3) id 10Sojd-00034S-00; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 22:10:45 +0100 Received: (from root@localhost) by troy.blacksheep.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA05807 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 23:03:55 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: from post.thorcom.com (root@post.unica.co.uk [194.75.183.70]) by troy.blacksheep.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA05803 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 23:03:53 GMT Received: from nms.rz.uni-kiel.de ([134.245.1.2]) by post.thorcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.04 #3) id 10SojO-00034C-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 22:10:30 +0100 Received: from mail.uni-kiel.d400.de (actually srv1.mail.uni-kiel.de) by nms.rz.uni-kiel.de with Local-SMTP (PP); Thu, 1 Apr 1999 23:10:24 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Received: from nephro.uni-kiel.de by mail.uni-kiel.d400.de (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA03973; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 23:10:19 +0200 Message-ID: <3703E0C9.78B405BF@nephro.uni-kiel.de> Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 23:10:33 +0200 From: "Peter W. Schnoor" Organization: University of Kiel, Clinic of Nephrology X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.33 i586) To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: Re: LF: AF-filters and CW versus SlowCW References: <37033EDB.63B6BC32@phonakcom.ch> <3.0.3.32.19990401212222.006e97e0@mailer.inrete.it> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Hello Gang, M. Bruno wrote: > [...] > I agree. The 3 sec time is optimal with white noise QRN or short > 'cracks', but many time I would have preferred to have 6 or 10 seconds > when receiving with Lux or heavy statics. Agreed. I found that 4-5 sec. with increased gaps (a little bit) often is easier to "decode" with my FFT application (SPECGRAM2 compiled for LINUX, console and X). > My personal preference is to have no smoothing, and use 300 msec dwell > time. My eye-brain SW likes to do the smoothing by itself ... ;-) I don't know what "dwell" really means in this topic but I think it's the time of data collection and folding/averaging in background. What means "smoothing"? In time or frequency domain? If it means "data windowing" the WELCH algorithm outperforms the other (Rectangular, Gaussian, Parzen, Hanning, etc.) since it does not "smear" too much, especially in case of LORAN-C background. > My loading coil is restored, I'm QRV for the weekend. Fine! Hope to meet you this weekend, may be in "normal" CW mode... Until now I did not hear any signal from Sweden. May be a "1st of April" joke? But there are some strong carriers tuning at different frequencies. Heard I5MXX (?) this evening *very* weak in "normal" CW. 54°16'N / 10°04'E, JO54ag 73 es gl de Peter, DF3LP