Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-ma03.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 441CC38000085; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:19:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1T6QME-0003gY-CT for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:17:46 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1T6QMD-0003gP-L2 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:17:45 +0100 Received: from out1.ip06ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.242]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1T6QMA-0007L6-VX for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:17:44 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ak8KAOsKPVBcHYHe/2dsb2JhbAA7AgikM4RnkFYDe4EIghsFAQEFCAEBA0kCDx0BAQMFAgEDEQQBAQolFAEEGgYWCAYRAgoBAgIBAQWHaAMQB7JHC4lQiiVjEAYFgQCFPgOIGoVCiQ6PAYJjPg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,328,1344207600"; d="scan'208,217";a="549099345" Received: from host-92-29-129-222.as13285.net (HELO xphd97xgq27nyf) ([92.29.129.222]) by out1.ip06ir2.opaltelecom.net with SMTP; 28 Aug 2012 19:17:40 +0100 Message-ID: <006b01cd8549$66e78c50$0501a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> From: "mal hamilton" To: References: <1067FFBBAFB14287AD6D816189F51B78@White> <004d01cd8529$0baa83d0$0501a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <24067C8AEE7D47088C54E354FE436A6E@AGB> Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:17:36 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Score: 4.9 (++++) 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: Graham You put out a respectable signal on OPERA and CW so I vote for you. The loudest BS critics seem to be having teething troubles producing signals on LF/MF. One very vocal critic about BS is still actually posting on this reflector, this has got me puzzled. In fact they are all tuned into BS for the latest Information es Education, something you will not get elswhere about LF/MF. The other reflector is all about picture postcards and publicity stunts and appearls more to the Appliance Operator [...] Content analysis details: (4.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [62.24.128.242 listed in list.dnswl.org] 1.0 FSL_XM_419 Old OE version in X-Mailer only seen in 419 spam -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 1.9 FSL_UA FSL_UA 2.1 AXB_XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_024C2 AXB_XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_024C2 X-Scan-Signature: af51d4375c088ae0fd739df304e30189 Subject: Re: LF: Re: WD2XES - Opera detected and identified by correlation Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0068_01CD8549.66968620" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,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-sid: 3039ac1d600b503d0b9f2d5a X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0068_01CD8549.66968620 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Graham You put out a respectable signal on OPERA and CW so I vote for you. The = loudest BS critics seem to be having teething troubles producing signals = on LF/MF. One very vocal critic about BS is still actually posting on = this reflector, this has got me puzzled.=20 In fact they are all tuned into BS for the latest Information es = Education, something you will not get elswhere about LF/MF. The other reflector is all about picture postcards and publicity stunts = and appearls more to the Appliance Operator g3kev ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Graham=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:47 PM Subject: Re: LF: Re: WD2XES - Opera detected and identified by = correlation Interesting analogy Mal ! may be we should start a CFRD = group , Campaign For Real Data ? you can the 'KEY' person : )=20 G.. From: mal hamilton=20 Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 3:22 PM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Subject: LF: Re: WD2XES - Opera detected and identified by correlation Markus This is what the CW es QRS operator are already doing. They have a = list of known operators Callisgns and a mental list of what the text is = going to be, like RST, OOO, MMM etc, Names, QRA locator etc. If a = piece of callsign or text fades out in QSB or hit by QRN then it is easy = to insert the missing digit. In other words what is being received is being compared against = already known information should it become necessary to use it. This works on LF because of the few operators on the band but would = not work on HF where there are hundreds of callsigns to pick from. mal/g3kev ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Markus Vester=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 10:22 PM Subject: LF: WD2XES - Opera detected and identified by correlation Recently I have been pondering wether it is possible to detect QRSS = or Opera transmissions by signal correlation against a known waveform. = This should far be more sensitive than the conventional incoherent = decoding process. John's stable and phase-coherent Opera transmission = last night's provided a welcome opportunity to test this scheme. Using SndInput from DL4YHF, I recorded a long IQ file at 2 samples / = second, ie. 2 Hz wide centered on 137561 Hz. The audio was taken = straight from the Rubidium-locked receiver, with no noise blanking = inserted. The data was then postprocessed using a MathCad spreadsheet. = Some results can be viewed in=20 http://df6nm.bplaced.net/opera/xes/ , along with TA grabber screenshots showing both XGJ and a weak trace = from XES in 21 mHz FFT (testTA.jpg). First a high resolution spectrogram was generated, at 1.9 mHz per = bin (xes_spectrogram.png). The central carrier component of the = transmission can clearly be seen. Best SNR occured between 3:30 and 4:30 = UT (as indicated by marker ticks), when the peak was 9.0 dB above the = noise (xes_spectrum.png). Scaling noise bandwidth from 2.9 mHz to 2.5 = kHz (-49.5 dB), and adding 6 dB for 50% duty cycle, we get a peak-power = SNR of -44.5 dB. This corresponds to -48.5 dB on the Opera SNR scale, = about 9 dB below the current decoding threshold for Op-32. The peak appeared about 0.2 Hz off-center because the 12 kHz = samplerate had not been not calibrated. Once the peak frequency is = accurately identified, the received signal can be correlated against a = "prototype" waveform, which contains the Opera sequence for WD2XES, = 16-fold oversampled. The correlation is efficiently implemented as a = multiplication in Fourier space. The result (xes_correlation_wd2xes.png) shows four distinct peaks in = time domain at 2:15, 2:48, 3:21 and 3:54 UT, which should correspond to = the a-priori unknown start times of John's Opera sequences. The = repetition period was apparently 32.92 minutes. As the DC component in = the reference waveform had not been removed, the peaks are riding on a = pedestal caused by the self-correlation of the carrier component. To check the ability to identify an unknown station, the correlation = to a different callsign was also plotted (WD2XGJ just as an arbitrary = example, see xes_correlation_wrongcode). In spite of the weak = cross-correlation peaks, we find that a correct selection from a list of = potential candidates would certainly be feasible. It would not be too difficult to automate this process and create an = "Opera deep search" software, which should be able to detect and = identify signals reliably down to about 12 dB below the threshold of the = current Opera decoder. This means at same sensitivity we could go 16 = times faster!=20 To reap this benefit, the following prerequisits need to be = fulfilled: - As we need a carrier component, transmit keying has to be phase = coherent. Thus simple keying schemes which interrupt the oscillator or = divider would not work. - as we look at phase-sensitive integration over the whole sequence = rather than a single symbol duration, the frequency stability has to be = much tighter. - As there is no bit-wise decoding involved, we will need to supply = a list of potential candidate callsigns (similar to deep-search in K1JT = EME modes). Thanks again to John and Warren for the signals! Best 73, Markus=20 (DF6NM in JN59NJ) =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0068_01CD8549.66968620 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Graham
You put out a respectable signal on OPERA and CW = so I vote=20 for you. The loudest BS critics seem to be having teething troubles = producing=20 signals on LF/MF. One very vocal critic about BS is still actually = posting on=20 this reflector, this has got me puzzled.
In fact they are all tuned into BS for the = latest=20 Information es Education, something you will not get elswhere about=20 LF/MF.
The other reflector is all about picture = postcards and=20 publicity stunts and appearls more to the Appliance = Operator
 
 
g3kev
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Graham
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 = 4:47=20 PM
Subject: Re: LF: Re: WD2XES - = Opera=20 detected and identified by correlation

Interesting   analogy  Mal !  may   = be  we  should  start  a  CFRD  =20 group , Campaign  For  Real  Data ? you  = can =20 the  'KEY'   person : )
 
G..

From: mal hamilton
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 3:22 PM
Subject: LF: Re: WD2XES - Opera detected and identified by = correlation

Markus
This is what the CW es QRS operator are = already doing.=20 They have a list of known operators Callisgns and a mental list of = what the=20 text is going to be,   like RST, OOO, MMM etc, = Names, QRA=20 locator etc. If a piece of callsign or text fades out in QSB = or hit=20 by QRN then it is easy to insert the=20 missing digit.
In other words what is being received is being = compared=20 against already known information should it become necessary to = use=20 it.
This works on LF because of the few operators = on the=20 band but would not work on HF where there are hundreds of callsigns to = pick=20 from.
mal/g3kev
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Markus=20 Vester
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= =20
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 = 10:22=20 PM
Subject: LF: WD2XES - Opera = detected=20 and identified by correlation

Recently I have been pondering = wether it is=20 possible to detect QRSS or Opera transmissions by signal correlation = against=20 a known waveform. This should far be more sensitive than the = conventional=20 incoherent decoding process. John's stable and phase-coherent Opera=20 transmission last night's provided a welcome opportunity to test = this=20 scheme.
 
Using SndInput from DL4YHF, I = recorded a long=20 IQ file at 2 samples / second, ie. 2 Hz wide centered on 137561 Hz. = The=20 audio was taken straight from the Rubidium-locked receiver, with no = noise=20 blanking inserted. The data was then postprocessed using a MathCad=20 spreadsheet. Some results can be viewed in
http://df6nm.bplaced.net/ope= ra/xes/=20 ,
along with TA grabber screenshots showing both XGJ and a weak = trace=20 from XES in 21 mHz FFT (testTA.jpg).
 
First a high resolution spectrogram = was=20 generated, at 1.9 mHz per bin (xes_spectrogram.png). The central = carrier=20 component of the transmission can clearly be seen. Best SNR occured = between=20 3:30 and 4:30 UT (as indicated by marker ticks), when the peak was = 9.0 dB=20 above the noise (xes_spectrum.png). Scaling noise bandwidth from 2.9 = mHz to=20 2.5 kHz (-49.5 dB), and adding 6 dB for 50% duty cycle, we get a = peak-power=20 SNR of -44.5 dB. This corresponds to -48.5 dB on the Opera SNR = scale, about=20 9 dB below the current decoding threshold for Op-32.
 
The peak appeared about 0.2 Hz = off-center=20 because the 12 kHz samplerate had not been not calibrated. Once the = peak=20 frequency is accurately identified, the received signal can be = correlated=20 against a "prototype" waveform, which contains the Opera sequence = for=20 WD2XES, 16-fold oversampled. The correlation is efficiently = implemented as a=20 multiplication in Fourier space.
 
The result = (xes_correlation_wd2xes.png) shows=20 four distinct peaks in time domain at 2:15, 2:48, 3:21 and 3:54 UT, = which=20 should correspond to the a-priori unknown start times of John's = Opera=20 sequences. The repetition period was apparently 32.92 minutes. As = the DC=20 component in the reference waveform had not been removed, the peaks = are=20 riding on a pedestal caused by the self-correlation of the carrier=20 component.
 
To check the ability to identify an = unknown=20 station, the correlation to a different callsign was also plotted = (WD2XGJ=20 just as an arbitrary example, see xes_correlation_wrongcode). In = spite of=20 the weak cross-correlation peaks, we find that a correct selection = from a=20 list of potential candidates would certainly be = feasible.
 
It would not be too difficult to = automate this=20 process and create an "Opera deep search" software, which should be = able to=20 detect and identify signals reliably down to about 12 dB below the = threshold=20 of the current Opera decoder. This means at same sensitivity  = we could=20 go 16 times faster!
 
To reap this benefit, the following = prerequisits need to be fulfilled:
- As we need a carrier = component,=20 transmit keying has to be phase coherent. Thus simple keying schemes = which=20 interrupt the oscillator or divider would not work.
- as we look = at=20 phase-sensitive integration over the whole sequence rather than a = single=20 symbol duration, the frequency stability has to be much = tighter.
- As=20 there is no bit-wise decoding involved, we will need to supply a = list of=20 potential candidate callsigns (similar to deep-search in K1JT EME=20 modes).
 
Thanks again to John and Warren for = the=20 signals!
 
Best 73,
 
Markus
(DF6NM in=20 JN59NJ)
 
------=_NextPart_000_0068_01CD8549.66968620--