Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6536 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2000 07:56:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by 10.226.25.101 with SMTP; 20 Jun 2000 07:56:08 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.02 #1) id 134IjM-0005An-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:45:56 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received: from bob.dera.gov.uk ([192.5.29.90]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 134IjK-0005Ai-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:45:55 +0100 Received: by bob.dera.gov.uk; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id IAA26664; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:50:14 +0100 (BST) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: (qmail 14209 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2000 08:40:22 -0000 Received: from gauntlet.mail.dera.gov.uk (172.16.9.10) by baton.dera.gov.uk with SMTP; 20 Jun 2000 08:40:22 -0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Received: by gauntlet.mail.dera.gov.uk; id IAA23914; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:39:24 GMT Received: from unknown(10.71.64.31) by gauntlet.mail.dera.gov.uk via smap (3.2) id xma023866; Tue, 20 Jun 00 08:38:54 GMT Received: from frn-gold-1.dera.gov.uk (unverified) by mailguard.dera.gov.uk (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.1.5) with ESMTP id for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:51:53 +0100 Received: by frn-gold-1.dera.gov.uk with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) id ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:44:20 +0100 Message-ID: <3617AC3245C2D1118A840000F805359C01AB8CCC@pdw-mercury-1.dera.gov.uk> From: "Talbot Andrew" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: LF: Very Slow Hell trial results Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:44:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: That was the idea of the low power transmission. It looks as if there may still be some work to be done on optimising the pixel duration against particular decoding software settings - Spectrogram does not seem particularly useful except for the widest version tried - and at 20Hz bandwidth this defeats the purpose I had in mind. It would be a difficult test to arange, but I wonder if there is any fair way to compare readability of Slow SMT Hell with Slow CW using equivalent bandwidth and equivalent time versions of both. Calculation should give most of the answers and needs doing anyway to find comparable speeds/bandwidths for a fair testing programme. Then perhaps I could transmit alternate modes throughout a day for some serious measurements. Walter, I suggest you get a copy of Spectan - Hi. Andy G4JNT >>beacon signal all day. Signal width was 2.5Hz / Pixel rate 2s on >>137.6kHz. Power to the antenna was 6 Watts with ERP around 0.6mW. >Yes, received here OK but must say it's a bit impractical. I only have >Spectrogram and to get the aspect ratio right I needed to have a 20000 >mS scan time - far too long. Your 20 Hz on Saturday was far better and >much quicker - 500 mS scan. Walter G3JKV >It was just visible, but very weak. Knowing what the letters were, made it >possible to identify it. John, G4CNN >I did run Spectran at 0.086? setting and could plainly see the signal but >far too stretched out due to my speed setting being too fast. As it had >taken about an hour to build it up I didn't try again.... >It would have been easily readable with the right settings although I could >hear nothing. Dave G3YXM. -- The Information contained in this E-Mail and any subsequent correspondence is private and is intended solely for the intended recipient(s). For those other than the recipient any disclosure, copying, distribution, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on such information is prohibited and may be unlawful.