Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28526 invoked from network); 9 Jan 2002 16:35:26 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received: from unknown (HELO warrior.services.quay.plus.net) (212.159.14.227) by excalibur-qfe1-smtp-plusnet.harl.plus.net with SMTP; 9 Jan 2002 16:35:26 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: (qmail 13766 invoked from network); 9 Jan 2002 16:35:24 -0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by warrior.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 9 Jan 2002 16:35:24 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.33 #2) id 16OLZX-0002nv-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Wed, 09 Jan 2002 16:27:27 +0000 Received: from hestia.herts.ac.uk ([147.197.200.9]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #2) id 16OLZW-0002nq-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 09 Jan 2002 16:27:26 +0000 Received: from gemini ([147.197.200.44] helo=gemini.herts.ac.uk) by hestia.herts.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1) id 16OLYl-0003B3-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 09 Jan 2002 16:26:39 +0000 Received: from [147.197.232.252] (helo=rsch-15.herts.ac.uk) by gemini.herts.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16OLYl-0000D0-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 09 Jan 2002 16:26:39 +0000 Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020109161053.00a913e0@gemini.herts.ac.uk> X-Sender: mj9ar@gemini.herts.ac.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 16:25:43 +0000 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org From: "James Moritz" Subject: LF: RE: GPS Coherent PSK Transmission In-reply-to: <7D653C9C42F5D411A27C00508BF8803DCB9942@pdw-mail-r1.dstl.go v.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: At 12:45 09/01/2002 +0000, you wrote: >Interesting that there appears to be no sign of the callsign ident..... Dear Andy, LF Group, I wouldn't be too surprised - even in 50Hz audio bandwidth, the signal was quite broken up by noise, and I doubt if I would have been able to copy the fast CW ID. In my experience with QRSS signals, a fast CW ID produces rather vague blobs at the sideband frequencies on the spectrogram even if it goes on for a long time - so since this CW ID would have been very short, and the FFT uses a 23s run of data to generate each pixel, the sidebands would be very faint and easily lost in the noise on this spectrogram. On the un-edited image, there are several blurs that could be the ID, but which might equally well be noise. Cheers, Jim Moritz 73 de M0BMU