Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.237.98 with SMTP id vb2csp64453igc; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 09:52:49 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.112.72.170 with SMTP id e10mr2932000lbv.43.1393869168510; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 09:52:48 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id rd2si22482774lac.114.2014.03.03.09.52.47 for ; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 09:52:48 -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; dkim=pass header.i=@mx.aol.com Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1WKX1a-0001bm-Ht for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 17:51:34 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1WKX1Z-0001bd-TV for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 17:51:33 +0000 Received: from omr-m10.mx.aol.com ([64.12.143.86]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WKX1X-0004Tc-0r for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 17:51:32 +0000 Received: from mtaomg-mba01.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-mba01.mx.aol.com [172.26.133.111]) by omr-m10.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 4C7167020D23E for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 12:51:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from core-dfd004c.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-dfd004.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.55.79]) by mtaomg-mba01.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 1197C38000089 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 12:51:28 -0500 (EST) References: <91EDCA349BE942929730C480D5D64F7F@White> To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org In-Reply-To: <91EDCA349BE942929730C480D5D64F7F@White> X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Markus Vester X-MB-Message-Type: User X-Mailer: Webmail 38427-BASIC Received: from 194.138.39.54 by webmail-d276.sysops.aol.com (205.188.16.107) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Mon, 03 Mar 2014 12:51:27 -0500 Message-Id: <8D10520560462B7-434-1D66F@webmail-d276.sysops.aol.com> X-Originating-IP: [194.138.39.54] Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 12:51:27 -0500 (EST) x-aol-global-disposition: G DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20121107; t=1393869088; bh=tF5rmywLT2Rx7JDquBc/5ol25HWQeSrPvEh1ram9Kx8=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-Id:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=armTWV5ZXKsyf9XhBgAKXq8srLqosj7Z7Grm5g03e3Ej2GgHNXcuWIbLVHEE6Y0xv JEwdO70w9CQ5YSb+NuieVZfvd0W/LNt1M2WbR7T3/lOk+fzW7unAgzcDLjyGa5jomc 5FaSmGH/aj5f4ahElA/QVCzl//HJ1uX/60xx0ppQ= x-aol-sid: 3039ac1a856f5314c1207ae5 X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) 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: Bob,  nothing at all in Nuernberg last night. There seemed to be no diurnal change in the background noise level, showing that my receiving setup is not sensitive enough yet. Apparently the current LF-VLF diplexer arrangement is too lossy for direct connection to the soundcard, and in addition the ADC noisefloor is a bit higher above 24 kHz (Sigma-Delta noise shaping?). Will try to redesign the circuit and insert a simple preamp tonight.  I have also slowed the grabber window to 424uHz bins, hoping for more long carrier transmissions tonight.  Best 73, Markus (DF6NM) [...] Content analysis details: (1.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [64.12.143.86 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (markusvester[at]aol.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid 1.0 FREEMAIL_REPLY From and body contain different freemails X-Scan-Signature: 80e63e173fa93b7854d61e1697120204 Subject: Re: LF: Would slower QRSS help? Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8D1052056176DB7_434_66423_webmail-d276.sysops.aol.com" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.6 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30, HTML_FONTCOLOR_UNKNOWN,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR 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. ----------MB_8D1052056176DB7_434_66423_webmail-d276.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Bob, =C2=A0 nothing at all in Nuernberg last night.=C2=A0There seemed to be=C2=A0no diu= rnal change in the background noise level,=C2=A0showing that=C2=A0my receiv= ing setup is not sensitive enough yet.=C2=A0Apparently the current LF-VLF d= iplexer arrangement is too lossy for direct connection to the soundcard, an= d in addition=C2=A0the ADC noisefloor=C2=A0is a bit=C2=A0higher above 24 kH= z (Sigma-Delta noise shaping?). Will try to redesign the=C2=A0circuit=C2=A0= and=C2=A0insert a simple preamp tonight. =C2=A0 I have also=C2=A0slowed the grabber=C2=A0window to 424uHz bins, hoping for = more long carrier transmissions tonight. =C2=A0 Best 73, Markus (DF6NM) -----Urspr=C3=BCngliche Mitteilung-----=20 Von: Markus Vester <markusvester@aol.com> An: rsgb_lf_group <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org> Verschickt: So, 2 Mrz 2014 7:57 pm Betreff: Re: LF: Would slower QRSS help? Just=C2=A0added a 3.8 mHz (aka "600") window for 29.499 khz=C2=A0to the bot= tom of my grabber: =C2=A0http://www.df6nm.de/vlf/vlfgrabber.htm.=20 Don't have much hope of seeing anything here. But if=C2=A0a miracle should = happen,=C2=A0very slow=C2=A0qrss=C2=A0(like five minute=C2=A0dots) might be= come readable. =C2=A0 Bob, could you give some details about=C2=A0your antenna capacitance, volta= ge, current etc? =C2=A0 Dex, are you intending to add some turns to your coil to come close to Bob'= s QRG? =C2=A0 Best 73, Markus (DF6NM) =C2=A0 From: Bob Raide=20 Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 6:35 PM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Subject: RE: LF: Would slower QRSS help? Paul; It appears to me that your 60 second bins has it!=C2=A0 I see A and B very = plainly.=C2=A0 Your RX capability is=C2=A0phenomenal!!! Warren Zeigler told me of your history of VLF receptions.=C2=A0=20 I will be running in=C2=A0QRSS 180 tonight.=C2=A0 If it isn't enough I can = go slower yet and then carrier for an hour with slight freq switch if nothi= ng else works. Please during transmission send me e mail for any changes you might like me= to implement.=C2=A0 Not sure if you can or want to stay up that late but I= will do whatever it takes to see your optimum results. This is only second night on and transmitter still not optimum.=C2=A0 Have = tuned input to make and install.=C2=A0 Would like a few more DB before coro= na takes over-Bob =C2=A0 > Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 17:16:42 +0000 > From: vlf0403@abelian.org > To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > Subject: Re: LF: Would slower QRSS help? >=20 > > ... QRSS 60 last night. >=20 > I guessed wrong and Markus suggests a faster > spectrogram. This one is in 60 second bins >=20 > http://abelian.org/vlf/tmp/29499_140302h.gif >=20 > And in 30 second bins >=20 > http://abelian.org/vlf/tmp/29499_140302i.gif >=20 > I don't know if it's any more readable but many > dots are clear in the 30 second one. >=20 > > Would slower be of any help for tonight's transmission? >=20 > Much. For detection at the max possible range send pure > carrier. To confirm ID, change frequency at some point, > 10 mHz or so, on the hour. >=20 > For the slow Morse each doubling of dot length would double > the brightness of your trace on the spectrogram. 120 should > put you in the red and 240 would be well into the yellow. >=20 > Background noise subsided here from about 04:30 so the S/N > improved for the final 2.5 hours of transmission. That > appears to be the European window to aim for. >=20 > -- > Paul Nicholson > -- >=20 ----------MB_8D1052056176DB7_434_66423_webmail-d276.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Bob,
 
nothing at= all in Nuernberg last night. There seemed to be no diurnal chang= e in the background noise level, showing that my receiving setup = is not sensitive enough yet. Apparently the current LF-VLF diplexer ar= rangement is too lossy for direct connection to the soundcard, and in addit= ion the ADC noisefloor is a bit higher above 24 kHz (Sigma-D= elta noise shaping?). Will try to redesign the circuit and i= nsert a simple preamp tonight.
 
I have als= o slowed the grabber window to 424uHz bins, hoping for more long = carrier transmissions tonight.
 
Best 73,
Markus (DF= 6NM)

-----Urspr=C3=BCngliche Mitteilung-----
Von: Markus Vester <markusvester@aol.com>
An: rsgb_lf_group <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Verschickt: So, 2 Mrz 2014 7:57 pm
Betreff: Re: LF: Would slower QRSS help?

Just added a 3.8 mHz (aka "600") wind= ow for 29.499 khz to the bottom of my grabber:
Don't have much hope of seeing anything he= re. But if a miracle should happen, very slow qrss (lik= e five minute dots) might become readable.
 
Bob, could you give some details about&nbs= p;your antenna capacitance, voltage, current etc?
 
Dex, are you intending to add some turns t= o your coil to come close to Bob's QRG?
 
Best 73,
Markus (DF6NM)
 

From: Bob Raide
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 6:35 PM
Subject: RE: LF: Would slower QRSS help?

Paul;
It appears to me that your 60 second bins has it!  I see A and B very = plainly.  Your RX capability is phenomenal!!!
Warren Zeigler told me of your history of VLF receptions. 
I will be running in QRSS 180 tonight.  If it isn't enough I can = go slower yet and then carrier for an hour with slight freq switch if nothi= ng else works.
Please during transmission send me e mail for any changes you might like me= to implement.  Not sure if you can or want to stay up that late but I= will do whatever it takes to see your optimum results.
This is only second night on and transmitter still not optimum.  Have = tuned input to make and install.  Would like a few more DB before coro= na takes over-Bob
 
> Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 17:16:42 +0000
> From: vlf0403@abelian.org > To: rsgb_lf_group@blac= ksheep.org
> Subject: Re: LF: Would slower QRSS help?
>
> > ... QRSS 60 last night.
>
> I guessed wrong and Markus suggests a faster
> spectrogram. This one is in 60 second bins
>
> http://abelian.org/vlf/tmp/29499_140302h.gif
>
> And in 30 second bins
>
> http://abelian.org/vlf/tmp/29499_140302i.gif
>
> I don't know if it's any more readable but many
> dots are clear in the 30 second one.
>
> > Would slower be of any help for tonight's transmission?
>
> Much. For detection at the max possible range send pure
> carrier. To confirm ID, change frequency at some point,
> 10 mHz or so, on the hour.
>
> For the slow Morse each doubling of dot length would double
> the brightness of your trace on the spectrogram. 120 should
> put you in the red and 240 would be well into the yellow.
>
> Background noise subsided here from about 04:30 so the S/N
> improved for the final 2.5 hours of transmission. That
> appears to be the European window to aim for.
>
> --
> Paul Nicholson
> --
>
----------MB_8D1052056176DB7_434_66423_webmail-d276.sysops.aol.com--