Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2158 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2002 10:52:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO murphys-inbound.services.quay.plus.net) (212.159.14.225) by excalibur-qfe1-smtp-plusnet.harl.plus.net with SMTP; 8 Jan 2002 10:52:20 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: (qmail 26918 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2002 10:52:20 -0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by murphys.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 8 Jan 2002 10:52:20 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.33 #2) id 16Ntov-0006ow-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2002 10:49:29 +0000 Received: from [204.202.140.198] (helo=webmailmta.go.com) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #2) id 16Ntou-0006ok-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2002 10:49:28 +0000 Received: from gomailjtp05 ([10.212.0.165]) by mta06.seamail.go.com (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.2000.10.12.16.25.p8) with ESMTP id <0GPM00DPB8NI1X@mta06.seamail.go.com> for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 02:47:42 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 02:47:40 -0800 (PST) From: "John Sexton" Subject: LF: RE: GPS Coherent PSK Transmission To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Message-ID: <2435607.1010486860862.JavaMail.computernetworks@gomailjtp05> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: GoMail 3.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: Hi Andy, Yes I should have realised that since it was 30 bits long, the start would be at the 15 min points, not at odd 7.5 minute points. However I saw your transmission start at about 18.53 (or was it 17.53) so perhaps you were a half-cycle out?? I didn't keep a record so I can't check. I used Jim's method No. 1, using Argo and looking for the beads on the line. There is a small problem with timing however, since the FFT introduces a delay. This appeared to be of the order of 1 bit, which I thought I had allowed for, but perhaps it was 2 bits or approx 0 bits, hence my record slipping 1 bit. Of course if you don't start at the correct zero, the probability of inversion depends on the ratio of 1's to 0's in the sequence. Anyway great fun. It is interesting that there are alternative simple ways of decoding modulations for which one does not have the standard equipment. This sounds like a new fun area. 73 John, G4CNN ___________________________________________________ GO.com Mail Get Your Free, Private E-mail at http://mail.go.com