Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.237.98 with SMTP id vb2csp53672igc; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 08:59:06 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.194.193.98 with SMTP id hn2mr112572wjc.95.1393606746263; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 08:59:06 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id gm5si2317024wjc.6.2014.02.28.08.59.05 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 08:59:06 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) client-ip=195.171.43.25; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) smtp.mail=owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1WJQ0i-0005xr-I7 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 16:10:04 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1WJQ0i-0005xi-2i for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 16:10:04 +0000 Received: from cpsmtpb-ews01.kpnxchange.com ([213.75.39.4]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WJQ0g-0006Ls-DK for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 16:10:02 +0000 Received: from cpsps-ews29.kpnxchange.com ([10.94.84.195]) by cpsmtpb-ews01.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.17514); Fri, 28 Feb 2014 17:10:02 +0100 Received: from CPSMTPM-TLF101.kpnxchange.com ([195.121.3.4]) by cpsps-ews29.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.17514); Fri, 28 Feb 2014 17:10:02 +0100 Received: from Extensa ([195.241.183.120]) by CPSMTPM-TLF101.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.17514); Fri, 28 Feb 2014 17:10:01 +0100 Message-ID: <1F2669C97DC4424E91070812057F55AD@Extensa> From: "PA1SDB, Peter" To: References: <5310AEE1.3090209@freenet.de> In-Reply-To: <5310AEE1.3090209@freenet.de> Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 16:10:01 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18645 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Feb 2014 16:10:01.0877 (UTC) FILETIME=[88EDE450:01CF349F] X-RcptDomain: blacksheep.org 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: Tnx Wolf for the quick explanation ! Perhaps 100uHz is the limit here, or perhaps 30 uHz. Experiment continues :-) ----- Original Message ----- From: wolf_dl4yhf To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 3:44 PM Subject: Re: LF: SL. 47 uHz vs. 16 uHz @ 8270.005 Hz [...] Content analysis details: (2.3 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [213.75.39.4 listed in list.dnswl.org] 1.0 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 1.3 COMPENSATION "Compensation" X-Scan-Signature: 42bbe44aa18353e845a65753486d556c Subject: Re: LF: SL. 47 uHz vs. 16 uHz @ 8270.005 Hz Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_19FF_01CF349F.88B5BD50" 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_19FF_01CF349F.88B5BD50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tnx Wolf for the quick explanation ! Perhaps 100uHz is the limit here, or perhaps 30 uHz. Experiment continues :-) ----- Original Message ----- From: wolf_dl4yhf To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 3:44 PM Subject: Re: LF: SL. 47 uHz vs. 16 uHz @ 8270.005 Hz Hi Peter and all, Am 28.02.2014 16:21, schrieb PA1SDB, Peter: Hello VLF. Just a experience message ! It seems that there is somewhere a perfect setting in "Width of FFT-bin", but where ? A good question.. and not easily answered. I'd say "it all depends". In this case, it depends on the soundcard's oscillator stability, despite stabilisation from the GPS sync pulse. At 16 uHz frequency we seem to have reached a limit (for this type of oscillator drift compensation). The next logical step would be building an A/D converter, or modifying a USB audio device to take the samping clock directly off a low-noise 'rock-solid reference' (a good GPS disciplined OCXO for example). I have fragments for such a project laying on the workbench (a low-cost Cortex-M3 microcontroller development kit) but no time yet to put the bits (bytes) and pieces together. At least, one would know of the Ionosphere (stability of the path length) or whatever else is the limiting factor. GL and all the best, Wolf . ------=_NextPart_000_19FF_01CF349F.88B5BD50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Tnx Wolf for the quick explanation = !
Perhaps 100uHz is the limit here, or perhaps = 30=20 uHz.
Experiment continues :-)
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 wolf_dl4yhf=20
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 = 3:44=20 PM
Subject: Re: LF: SL. 47 uHz vs. = 16 uHz @=20 8270.005 Hz

Hi Peter and all,

Am 28.02.2014 = 16:21,=20 schrieb PA1SDB, Peter:
Hello VLF.
Just a experience message !
 
It seems that there is somewhere a perfect = setting=20 in "Width of FFT-bin", but where ?

A = good=20 question.. and not easily answered. I'd say "it all depends".
In = this case,=20 it depends on the soundcard's oscillator stability, despite = stabilisation from=20 the GPS sync pulse.
At 16 uHz frequency we seem to have reached a = limit=20 (for this type of oscillator drift compensation).

The next = logical step=20 would be building an A/D converter, or modifying a USB audio device to = take=20 the samping clock directly off a low-noise 'rock-solid reference' (a = good GPS=20 disciplined OCXO for example).
I have fragments for such a project = laying=20 on the workbench (a low-cost Cortex-M3 microcontroller development = kit) but no=20 time yet to put the bits (bytes) and pieces together.
At least, one = would=20 know of the Ionosphere (stability of the path length) or whatever else = is the=20 limiting factor.


GL and all the best,
  Wolf=20 .

------=_NextPart_000_19FF_01CF349F.88B5BD50--