Message-ID: <588231B5.6030702@posteo.de>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 16:50:13 +0100
From: DK7FC <selberdenken@posteo.de>
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
References: <0166BDF4-A692-4E83-AA17-DE6FC012EC1F@talktalk.net> <E7F5A41C84CB41B19EA9EC252D662A42@PCPMF> <877D570598134B12ADC67A8D874C9F32@AGB> <BC20A83130204F18AFD8F2E6D515BFE5@malcoHP> <23DE64E288C84B19B7C9212A6CADFBB8@PCPMF> <587E6B7A.6090204@posteo.de> <BN3PR1101MB1059F1E32221E309B072C9EACF7C0@BN3PR1101MB1059.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <587E72D1.3080109@posteo.de> <BN3PR1101MB1059C5C899DDB2622A3A5CC3CF7C0@BN3PR1101MB1059.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <587E9CEB.7010105@posteo.de> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1701180040570.642@mailn.lipkowski.org> <587EAE7E.8070607@posteo.de> <96a864da2bc335c77277487a4a1d9e0e@smtp.hushmail.com> <5881222D.9050002@posteo.de> <58813585.9000200@abelian.org> <58821669.2060604@posteo.de> <58822A0B.9080204@posteo.de>
In-Reply-To: <58822A0B.9080204@posteo.de>
Subject: Re: LF: VLF/ULF activity weekend 21th/22th
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------030006080604050904050406"
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Status: O

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------030006080604050904050406
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Paul,

Can you combine two transmissions on different frequencies or will that 
cause trouble? I changed the frequency for the tomorrows carrier between 
8...17 UTC to 2970.005 Hz now but i could turn it back as well. Oh yes, 
that may be a good idea anyway because Renato is watching in 5 uHz: 
http://www.webalice.it/rromero/live_cumiana/last-LFtest_2970.jpg
One week is just a few pixels long there, so i should stay on 2970.000 
Hz for the carriers. So i hereby change the transmission plan...

73, Stefan

Am 20.01.2017 16:17, schrieb DK7FC:
> ...sorry i just see that my frequency is 2970.000 Hz, not 2970.005 Hz 
> as announced...
>
> 73, Stefan
>
> Am 20.01.2017 14:53, schrieb DK7FC:
>> Am 19.01.2017 22:54, schrieb Paul Nicholson:
>>>
>>> Looks good Stefan.  I'll be looking for your signals.
>>
>> Is there already a visible peak? The ERP is 2.8 uW. The carrier is 
>> now running since almost 6 hours. I'm curious! Also it is interesting 
>> that you can find optimised settings relative to 8270 Hz. I don't yet 
>> understand why it should make a difference to duplicate the stream 
>> and get and apply the blanker from and to different filter settings 
>> on the separate channels. Exiting stuff to experiment with.
>>
>> BTW, it is always a bit strange to claim to do the first whatever 
>> (records...), but a few years ago the computer technique was not as 
>> developed to handle modes like 16K25A. So can we conclude that it was 
>> _impossible_ to manage a message transfer over several 100 km on the 
>> lower VLF ( < 10 kHz ) with such power levels?
>>
>> The PC causes a lot of phase glitches which are corrected immediately 
>> but one can see a noise spectrum at -20 dBc :-/ I just didn't find 
>> the time to prepare a better setup during the last days but i'm 
>> already working on it...
>>
>> 73, Stefan

--------------030006080604050904050406
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Paul, <br>
<br>
Can you combine two transmissions on different frequencies or will that
cause trouble? I changed the frequency for the tomorrows carrier
between 8...17 UTC to 2970.005 Hz now but i could turn it back as well.
Oh yes, that may be a good idea anyway because Renato is watching in 5
uHz: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.webalice.it/rromero/live_cumiana/last-LFtest_2970.jpg">http://www.webalice.it/rromero/live_cumiana/last-LFtest_2970.jpg</a><br>
One week is just a few pixels long there, so i should stay on 2970.000
Hz for the carriers. So i hereby change the transmission plan...<br>
<br>
73, Stefan<br>
<br>
Am 20.01.2017 16:17, schrieb DK7FC:
<blockquote cite="mid:58822A0B.9080204@posteo.de" type="cite">
  <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
...sorry i just see that my frequency is 2970.000 Hz, not 2970.005 Hz
as announced...<br>
  <br>
73, Stefan<br>
  <br>
Am 20.01.2017 14:53, schrieb DK7FC:
  <blockquote cite="mid:58821669.2060604@posteo.de" type="cite">
    <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
Am 19.01.2017 22:54, schrieb Paul Nicholson:
    <blockquote cite="mid:58813585.9000200@abelian.org" type="cite"><br>
Looks good Stefan.  I'll be looking for your signals. <br>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
Is there already a visible peak? The ERP is 2.8 uW. The carrier is now
running since almost 6 hours. I'm curious! Also it is interesting that
you can find optimised settings relative to 8270 Hz. I don't yet
understand why it should make a difference to duplicate the stream and
get and apply the blanker from and to different filter settings on the
separate channels. Exiting stuff to experiment with.<br>
    <br>
BTW, it is always a bit strange to claim to do the first whatever
(records...), but a few years ago the computer technique was not as
developed to handle modes like 16K25A. So can we conclude that it was <u>impossible</u>
to manage a message transfer over several 100 km on the lower VLF (
&lt; 10 kHz ) with such power levels?<br>
    <br>
The PC causes a lot of phase glitches which are corrected immediately
but one can see a noise spectrum at -20 dBc :-/ I just didn't find the
time to prepare a better setup during the last days but i'm already
working on it...<br>
    <br>
73, Stefan<br>
  </blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>

--------------030006080604050904050406--