Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dh03.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 05DC73800009C; Tue, 15 May 2012 14:18:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1SUMJO-0003WU-Ik for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 15 May 2012 19:17:30 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1SUMJN-0003WL-Rc for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 15 May 2012 19:17:29 +0100 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de ([129.206.210.211]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SUMJL-0004Gp-BC for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 15 May 2012 19:17:28 +0100 Received: from freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.29.204]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4FIHPIO018266 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 15 May 2012 20:17:25 +0200 Received: from [129.206.22.206] (pc206.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.22.206]) by freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.11.20060308/8.11.2) with ESMTP id q4FIHPxO018183; Tue, 15 May 2012 20:17:25 +0200 Message-ID: <4FB29D6F.2020902@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 20:16:15 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Stefan_Sch=E4fer?= 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 CC: "YV7MAE Maritn A. Echazarreta D." References: <4FB1A35D.2030909@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Thanks Joe, Markus (and private mailers), I'm amazed about the very good reception of this system now. DCF39 is now visible almost 24/7, at good strength, over almost 8000 km. The DCF39 plot is just amazing i find. [...] Content analysis details: (-2.3 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust [129.206.210.211 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: 24b65a258fa7a3a87cfdaa03bb2f3176 Subject: Re: LF: DK7FC in South America Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090808040108000206030504" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE 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 x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:378815072:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d41174fb29e123fe3 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090808040108000206030504 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks Joe, Markus (and private mailers), I'm amazed about the very good reception of this system now. DCF39 is now visible almost 24/7, at good strength, over almost 8000 km. The DCF39 plot is just amazing i find. I think i learned a bit from Martin's receive station: Normally we say "If the band noise is 15 dB above the Soundcard+RX noise, then the system has full sensitivity (for a given antenna design, e.g. a wire)". But i think we have to take a look at the noise _after_ blanking the strong sferics. If one runs a fast spectrogram, say 200ms/pix. then we see strong sferics but many other stuff like local QRM between them. Also the background noise after blanking may be just arround the soundcard+RX noise. When looking at a slow scrolling spectrogram, even with a high FFT bin width, the noise looks much higher and so the system seems to look as sensitive as possible. However the band noise after sferic blanking is the real important value which must be well above the soundcard noise. On this grabber in YV it looks like there is a very high difference between blanked and non-blanked noise levels, maybe 10 dB or above. I will check this in an audio recording... Update for Martin's receptions: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/19882028/LF/YV7_so_far.png Who will be the next? O think there must be a advantage of some dB for UK transmitting stations. 73, Stefan/DK7FC Am 15.05.2012 13:24, schrieb jcraig@mun.ca: > It was amazing to see Martin's capture of Stefan's sigs. > Well done, gentlemen! > > 73 > Joe VO1NA > > > This electronic communication is governed by the terms and conditions at > http://www.mun.ca/cc/policies/electronic_communications_disclaimer_2012.php > --------------090808040108000206030504 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks Joe, Markus (and private mailers),

I'm amazed about the very good reception of this system now. DCF39 is now visible almost 24/7, at good strength, over almost 8000 km. The DCF39 plot is just amazing i find.

I think i learned a bit from Martin's receive station:
Normally we say "If the band noise is 15 dB above the Soundcard+RX noise, then the system has full sensitivity (for a given antenna design, e.g. a wire)".
But i think we have to take a look at the noise after blanking the strong sferics. If one runs a fast spectrogram, say 200ms/pix. then we see strong sferics but many other stuff like local QRM between them. Also the background noise after blanking may be just arround the soundcard+RX noise. When looking at a slow scrolling spectrogram, even with a high FFT bin width, the noise looks much higher and so the system seems to look as sensitive as possible. However the band noise after sferic blanking is the real important value which must be well above the soundcard noise.
On this grabber in YV it looks like there is a very high difference between blanked and non-blanked noise levels, maybe 10 dB or above. I will check this in an audio recording...

Update for Martin's receptions: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/19882028/LF/YV7_so_far.png

Who will be the next? O think there must be a advantage of some dB for UK transmitting stations.

73, Stefan/DK7FC


Am 15.05.2012 13:24, schrieb jcraig@mun.ca:
It was amazing to see Martin's capture of Stefan's sigs.
Well done, gentlemen!

73
Joe VO1NA


This electronic communication is governed by the terms and conditions at
http://www.mun.ca/cc/policies/electronic_communications_disclaimer_2012.php
--------------090808040108000206030504--