Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mb02.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 54D5B3800008A; Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:10:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1U8yQZ-0005hf-Ej for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 22 Feb 2013 19:37:03 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1U8yQY-0005hW-H9 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 22 Feb 2013 19:37:02 +0000 Received: from smtpout2.wanadoo.co.uk ([80.12.242.42] helo=smtpout.wanadoo.co.uk) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1U8yQV-0001Y5-H6 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 22 Feb 2013 19:37:01 +0000 Received: from AGB ([2.26.13.133]) by mwinf5d29 with ME id 3Xcb1l0102sEPRu03XcbVM; Fri, 22 Feb 2013 20:36:38 +0100 Message-ID: From: "Graham" To: References: <5D5AC9F70F5745ABA5FFFC81CB26CC76@Black> <009901ce10f9$3c1abf10$6401a8c0@JAYDELL> <002d01ce1111$6fc7bbc0$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> In-Reply-To: <002d01ce1111$6fc7bbc0$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 19:36:35 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) 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: Bit like Baying at the Moon eh , Mal Any old hound can bark at it , but it takes a kind' a smart one to get up there and take a bite out of it .. G..) [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [80.12.242.42 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: 68701e491b3279fd2ee04d15cfa5e3e8 Subject: Re: LF: Re: Re: Re: Op-32 correlation results online Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004D_01CE1133.ECED1DD0" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.9 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE, MISSING_OUTLOOK_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 x-aol-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d60165127d0b033aa 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_004D_01CE1133.ECED1DD0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bit like Baying at the Moon eh , Mal Any old hound can bark at it , but it takes a kind' a smart one = to get up there and take a bite out of it .. G..) From: mal hamilton=20 Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:28 PM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Subject: LF: Re: Re: Re: Op-32 correlation results online Jay QRSS is hard to beat, simple straight forward, can be read directly off = a screen as it is transmitted/received, no waiting for decodes that = might never happen, can also be read by EAR when the signal is strong = enough. Speed can immediately be adjusted to suit propagation conditions, and = QSO mode immediately available. Data modes that I have observed on the waterfall that do not decode = would easily have been read in QRSS mode or even CW I am not convinced that any data modes that I have seen so far are = better or have an advantage over QRSS for weak signal recognization. = They might have more bells and whistles like Internet reporting, = database info storage etc but this does not give them any advantages in = the real world of weak signal detection. 73 gl de mal/g3kev ----- Original Message -----=20 From: jrusgrove@comcast.net=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 12:36 PM Subject: LF: Re: Re: Op-32 correlation results online Markus Thanks for the information and your work on 'deep search' OP-32. It's = nice to know that the time and $ spent on frequency stability / phase = coherence is worth it.=20 After not getting any OP-32 spots from EU last night (at least by the = stations using the conventional program) I switched over to QRSS45 at = 0400Z for a couple sequences of 'XNS' on 137781. The signal was = displayed immediately at the F1AFJ and YV7MAE grabbers with good signal = levels ... signal levels that one would expect to have have been = decoded by OP-32. Hartmut reports seeing 'XNS' QRSS but no OP-32 decodes = either. As time goes on, I'm becoming more convinced that QRSS trumps = even the very weak signal digital modes. Think folks are being ' wowed ' = by the impressive s/n abilities quoted by the programs ... without = comparing them to something as simple as QRSS which may turn out to be a = better weak signal performer.=20 Jay W1VD WD2XNS WE2XGR/2 =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Markus Vester=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org ; rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk=20 Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 5:07 AM Subject: LF: Re: Op-32 correlation results online The Op-32 detections from last night are on http://www.df6nm.bplaced.net/opera/detected_130221-22.txt=20 which are basically the correlation hits which were marked by *. The = current list of templates is http://www.df6nm.bplaced.net/opera/callsigs.txt Jay appeared again here three times. RN3TTS was detected for the = first time, once at the beginning. WE2XEB was not copied (yet) - Bob if = you could tell your actual transmit frequency I would try to inspect the = spectrogram more closely. I have collated a gallery of zoomed spectra and spectrograms http://www.df6nm.bplaced.net/opera/Op-32_spectra_130221-22.png UA4WPF and WD2XNS both have a very well defined central peak, which = proves that their signals are phasecoherent between dashes and also very = stable. RA3YO seems to be phase-coherent as well but with some frequency = variation. The others seem to be sending incoherently, possibly because = their oscillators or dividers are being restarted with every dash. = Experiments with simulated signals have indicated that my detection = threshold seems to be about 6 dB lower for coherent signals. BTW Blacksheep still seems to be sick for me. Like Alan, the last = message I got was yesterday 16:38 from Jay. Best 73, Markus www.df6nm.de ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Markus Vester=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org ; rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk=20 Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:09 PM Subject: Re: Op-32 correlation results online To produce some kind of realtime feedback to transmitting stations, = I will upload screenshots from the experimental Opera deep-search = utility in ten-minute intervals to https://dl.dropbox.com/u/26404526/df6nm_opds.png This is unfiltered output, so repeating partial correlations will = often appear in several consecutive time slots. The "proper" ones with = most overlap are marked by an asterisk.=20 The "mHz" column shows the apparent bandwidth of the central peak: = Coherent stable transmissions will often remain within 1 or 2 mHz, = whereas spreading by non-continuous phase will typically result in 60 to = 150 mHz. There are actually two separate carrier searches, which can = lead to the same signal being picked up twice within the same slot. = Peaks on Loran line frequencies are being excluded from processing. BTW Again I haven't received anything from Blacksheep since 17 UT, = so I'm currently pretty much blind to email from the group. Best 73, Markus www.df6nm.de ------=_NextPart_000_004D_01CE1133.ECED1DD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bit like  Baying  at the  Moon eh , =  Mal
 
Any old  hound  can bark  at  it  , but it =  takes a  kind' a   smart one to  get  up=20 there  and take a bite out of it  ..
 
G..)
 
 

From: mal hamilton
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:28 PM
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= =20
Subject: LF: Re: Re: Re: Op-32 correlation results=20 online

Jay
QRSS is hard to beat, simple straight forward, = can be read=20 directly off a screen as it is transmitted/received, no waiting for = decodes=20 that might never happen,  can also be read by EAR when the signal = is strong=20 enough.
Speed can immediately be adjusted to suit = propagation=20 conditions, and QSO mode immediately available.
Data modes that I have observed on the waterfall = that do not decode would easily have been read in QRSS mode or even = CW
I am not convinced that any data modes that I = have seen so=20 far are better or have an advantage over QRSS for weak signal=20 recognization. They might have more bells and whistles like Internet = reporting,=20 database info storage etc but this does not give them any = advantages=20 in the real world of weak signal detection.
 
73 gl de mal/g3kev
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 jrusgrove@comcast.net
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 = 12:36=20 PM
Subject: LF: Re: Re: Op-32 = correlation=20 results online

Markus
 
Thanks for the information and your = work on 'deep=20 search' OP-32. It's nice to know that the time and $ spent on = frequency=20 stability / phase coherence is worth it.
 
After not getting any OP-32 spots = from EU last=20 night (at least by the stations using the conventional program) I = switched=20 over to QRSS45 at 0400Z for a couple sequences of 'XNS' on 137781. The = signal=20 was displayed immediately at the F1AFJ and YV7MAE grabbers with=20 good signal levels  ... signal levels that one would = expect to=20 have have been decoded by OP-32. Hartmut reports seeing 'XNS' QRSS but = no=20 OP-32 decodes either. As time goes on, I'm becoming more convinced = that QRSS=20 trumps even the very weak signal digital modes. Think folks are being = ' wowed=20 ' by the impressive s/n abilities quoted by the programs=20 ... without comparing them to something as simple as QRSS = which may=20 turn out to be a better weak signal performer.
 
Jay W1VD  WD2XNS  = WE2XGR/2
 
  
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Markus=20 Vester
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= =20 ; rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups= .co.uk=20
Sent: Friday, February 22, = 2013 5:07=20 AM
Subject: LF: Re: Op-32 = correlation=20 results online

The Op-32 detections from = last night=20 are on
http:/= /www.df6nm.bplaced.net/opera/detected_130221-22.txt 
which are basically the = correlation=20 hits which were marked by *. The current list of = templates=20 is
http://www.df6nm= .bplaced.net/opera/callsigs.txt
 
Jay appeared again here three = times.=20 RN3TTS was detected for the first time, once at the beginning.=20 WE2XEB was not copied (yet) - Bob if = you could tell your=20 actual transmit frequency I would try to inspect the spectrogram = more=20 closely.
 
I have collated a gallery of zoomed = spectra and spectrograms
h= ttp://www.df6nm.bplaced.net/opera/Op-32_spectra_130221-22.png<= /DIV>
UA4WPF and WD2XNS both have a very = well defined=20 central peak, which proves that their signals are phasecoherent = between=20 dashes and also very stable. RA3YO seems to = be phase-coherent as=20 well but with some frequency variation. The others = seem to be=20 sending incoherently, possibly because their oscillators or = dividers=20 are being restarted with every dash. Experiments with simulated=20 signals have indicated that my detection threshold = seems to=20 be about 6 dB lower for coherent signals.
 
BTW Blacksheep still seems to be = sick for me.=20 Like Alan, the last message I got was yesterday 16:38 from = Jay.
 
Best 73,
Markus
 
www.df6nm.de
 
 
----- Original Message -----=20
From: = Markus=20 Vester
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:09 PM
Subject: Re: Op-32 correlation results = online

To produce some kind of realtime = feedback to=20 transmitting stations, I will upload screenshots = from the=20 experimental Opera deep-search utility in ten-minute intervals=20 to
 
https://dl.drop= box.com/u/26404526/df6nm_opds.png
 
This is unfiltered output, = so repeating=20 partial correlations will often appear in several consecutive = time=20 slots. The "proper" ones with most overlap are marked by=20 an asterisk.
 
The "mHz" column shows the = apparent=20 bandwidth of the central peak: Coherent stable transmissions = will often=20 remain within 1 or 2 mHz, whereas spreading by non-continuous phase = will=20 typically result in 60 to 150 mHz. There are actually two = separate=20 carrier searches, which can lead to the same signal being = picked up=20 twice within the same slot. Peaks on Loran line frequencies are = being=20 excluded from processing.
 
 
BTW Again I haven't received = anything from=20 Blacksheep since 17 UT, so I'm currently pretty much blind to = email=20 from the group.
 
Best 73,
Markus
 
www.df6nm.de
 
 
 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_004D_01CE1133.ECED1DD0--