Message-ID: <4F8212ED.8000502@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 00:36:29 +0200
From: =?UTF-8?B?U3RlZmFuIFNjaMOkZmVy?= <Stefan.Schaefer@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <4F803F91.80007@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <1333806691.2036.3.camel@gerhard-desktop-acer> <4F813C2D.3010500@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <4F815F15.2070002@talktalk.net>
In-Reply-To: <4F815F15.2070002@talktalk.net>
Subject: Re: VLF: Local VLF tests...
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0  
x-aol-sid: 3039ac1dc1464f8213505222
X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25
X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none


Hi Eddie,

I don't think this is my signal. The DFCW shift is 3 mHz, so my upper=20
frequency is 8969.98150 Hz. BTW my FFT and scroll rate settings are the=20
same as used in the typical DFCW-6000 SL instance used by many VLF=20
Grabber operator, like yours :-) So it should be easy to compare the trac=
es.

Unfortunately the upload of my normal LF and VLF grabber is off now.=20
However you can follow the transmission in the 424 uHz window at=20
http://www.iup.uni-heidelberg.de/schaefer_vlf/DK7FC_VLF_Grabber2.html
One call takes about 3 days :-) Soon i will try QRO and DFCW-60000, just=20
for fun :-)

Good luck anyway and thanks for watching for the weak signal.

73, Stefan/DK7FC


Am 08.04.2012 11:49, schrieb qrss:
> Stefan
>
> There is a common start / finish minute on the dots in the=20
> att.capture.HH.m3 to the best of my measurement ability, they=20
> certainly coincide with your TX periods.
>
> 73 Eddie G3ZJO
>
> Grabber:- http://g3zjo.bplaced.net/index.htm
>
> Also :- http://www.g3zjo.talktalk.net/vlfgrabber.htm
>
> On 08/04/2012 08:20, Stefan Sch=C3=A4fer wrote:
>> Hi Gerhard,
>>
>> Yes, of course. I just meant the "official" researchers who do that=20
>> work as their job to earn money and (have to) publish their work on=20
>> conferences and in various papers. For them it is important to be=20
>> "the first" one who describes a phenomen. We are in the situation to=20
>> do what we want to do, just for fun and extremely relaxed :-) If our=20
>> work is "new" then it is fine and if it is "re-inventing the wheel"=20
>> then it is fine too :-)
>>
>> 73, Stefan/DK7FC
>>
>> Am 07.04.2012 15:51, schrieb Gerhard Hickl:
>>> Stefan !
>>>
>>> I think WE ARE researchers in some way. Maybe not all of us do have t=
he
>>> theoretical background which is "necessary" do to "real" research
>>> (whatever that means) but sometimes I think this could be an advantag=
e.
>>>
>>> 73
>>> OE3GHB
>>> Gerhard
>>>
>>
>>
>