X-GM-THRID: 1201055461813100488 X-Gmail-Labels: rsgb lf X-Gmail-Received: 78b72e6c8730ea211ee70519e3c167a390e9ea22 Delivered-To: daveyxm@gmail.com Received: by 10.54.70.6 with SMTP id s6cs30412wra; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 13:42:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.49.54.17 with SMTP id g17mr1664069nfk; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 13:42:49 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id d2si221819nfe.2006.04.21.13.42.48; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 13:42:49 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (gmail.com: 193.82.116.20 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1FX2PS-0002DR-G5 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 21:39:22 +0100 Received: from [193.82.59.130] (helo=relay2.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1FX2PS-0002DI-0r for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 21:39:22 +0100 Received: from imo-d23.mx.aol.com ([205.188.139.137]) by relay2.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.51) id 1FX3jx-0007dy-KT for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 23:04:38 +0100 Received: from MarkusVester@aol.com by imo-d23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r7.5.) id l.297.939de76 (4446) for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:39:09 -0400 (EDT) From: MarkusVester@aol.com Message-ID: <297.939de76.317a9ced@aol.com> Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:39:09 EDT To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6104 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,AWL=-0.997,HTML_40_50=0.086,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,NO_REAL_NAME=0.178 Subject: Re: LF: 18.5 kHz in CT Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_297.939de76.317a9ced_boundary" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE, HTML_TAG_BALANCE_HTML,NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 6449 --part1_297.939de76.317a9ced_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Jay, judging by the frequencies of other transmissions (eg. Alpha Nav, NWC=20 Australia 19.8 kHz, DHO 23.4 kHz), they seem to be better than the FFT bin w= idth (47=20 Hz). A couple of monitors (Dunedin and Hawaii) are running at different=20 samplerates, but they have adjusted their scales accordingly. Occasionally t= here are=20 offsets in the UTC timing, but it is often possible to overlay spectrograms=20 by matching the FSK contents. I have even tried to look for relative delays=20= of=20 spherics, but that's pretty hopeless with 20 ms (6000 km) resolution in the=20 Fourier transformed data. 73 de Markus, DF6NM In einer eMail vom 21.04.2006 01:12:02 Westeurop=E4ische Sommerzeit schreibt= =20 JRusgrove@comcast.net:=20 > How accurate are the WWLLN frequency scales? In particular does 18.5 fall=20 > on 18.5?=20 >=20 --part1_297.939de76.317a9ced_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Jay,

judging by the frequencies of other transmissions (eg. Alpha Nav, NWC Austra= lia 19.8 kHz, DHO 23.4 kHz), they seem to be better than the FFT bin width (= 47 Hz). A couple of monitors (Dunedin and Hawaii) are running at different s= amplerates, but they have adjusted their scales accordingly. Occasionally th= ere are offsets in the UTC timing, but it is often possible to overlay spect= rograms by matching the FSK contents. I have even tried to look for relative= delays of spherics, but that's pretty hopeless with 20 ms (6000 km) resolut= ion in the Fourier transformed data.

73 de Markus, DF6NM

In einer eMail vom 21.04.2006 01:12:02 Westeurop=E4ische Sommerzeit schreibt= JRusgrove@comcast.net:

How accurate are the WWLLN freq= uency scales? In particular does 18.5 fall on 18.5?


--part1_297.939de76.317a9ced_boundary--