Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by klubnl.pl (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8+deb8u2) with ESMTP id vBTAqDVB009167 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2017 11:52:15 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1eUsCD-0006JV-8r for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 29 Dec 2017 10:47:25 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1eUsCB-0006JM-UJ for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 29 Dec 2017 10:47:23 +0000 Received: from omr-a014e.mx.aol.com ([204.29.186.62]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eUsC8-0001Qx-JH for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 29 Dec 2017 10:47:22 +0000 Received: from mtaomg-aaj01.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-aaj01.mx.aol.com [172.27.3.207]) by omr-a014e.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 15A5D3800085 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2017 05:47:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from core-ace03c.mail.aol.com (core-ace03.mail.aol.com [172.27.23.3]) by mtaomg-aaj01.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id C7A5438000081 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2017 05:47:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from 188.194.222.230 by webjas-vae002.srv.aolmail.net (10.96.23.5) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Fri, 29 Dec 2017 05:47:16 -0500 Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 05:47:16 -0500 From: Markus Vester To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Message-Id: <160a1e21541-171c-1ee@webjas-vae002.srv.aolmail.net> In-Reply-To: <5d959a0f-c16c-e1f4-f04e-738592c7ad40@abelian.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI X-MB-Message-Type: User X-Mailer: JAS STD X-Originating-IP: [188.194.222.230] x-aol-global-disposition: G DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20150623; t=1514544437; bh=d0Pf0NcLAGdRtGmDpX4ZxJa9mNw00rcGeXiYvq6hULU=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-Id:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=ORxHKe9JvC+OF2zWCI8+3O/o8K8fJKYsArfaSxvPCo5MNSTqfmoDERYULv0UgEqEv kAOfe9vh9jJI3P/iHoX6pCNG85BmJ9glvNosd3uTOmZmG19I06YXaYi8btrhP0M94i 7aPTiKQ+KIMoQgfudMo7fEBmiLYIrdkBG0tBKzvc= x-aol-sid: 3039ac1b03cf5a461d342d36 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hi Paul, Stefan, my thought was that HWU 18.3 kHz might be near enough to serve as a guide to propagational phase changes on 17.47 kHz, ultimately allowing phase corrections before stacking. But I'm not sure about the stability of that specific transmitter. Some time around 2007, I used SpecLab's phase-amplitude-monitors (PAM) to observe diurnals on several MSK stations. 1pps lock wasn't available to me at the time, so I used a 10 kHz reference from a Jupiter GPS, which produced useful measurements despite occasional glitches due to soundcard overruns. The NATO transmitters (GBZ, GQD, NAA, NML, NLK, NWC, presumably also NPM, NDT and JXN) seemed to be impeccably on frequency with perfectly repeating phase - I speculate that these signals are actually still being used for submarine VLF navigation. German DHO was also stable but a few ppb above nominal 23.4 kHz. French HWU was on frequency, but the phase seemed to have some random variations, which might spoil the application for our purpose. But we could fix this by comparing simultaneous observations in Europe and America. [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (markusvester[at]aol.com) 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Scan-Signature: ad9c0e3658f56f4dbb01cd425a6a8031 Subject: Re: LF: VLF NA Ebnaut Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_591_1958612929.1514544436545" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.1 required=5.0 tests=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 ------=_Part_591_1958612929.1514544436545 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Paul, Stefan, my thought was that HWU 18.3 kHz might be near enough to serve as a guide t= o propagational phase changes on 17.47 kHz, ultimately allowing phase corre= ctions before stacking.=20 But I'm not sure about the stability of that specific transmitter. Some tim= e around 2007, I used SpecLab's phase-amplitude-monitors (PAM) to observe d= iurnals on several MSK stations. 1pps lock wasn't available to me at the ti= me, so I used a 10 kHz reference from a Jupiter GPS, which produced useful = measurements despite occasional glitches due to soundcard overruns. The NAT= O transmitters (GBZ, GQD, NAA, NML, NLK, NWC, presumably also NPM, NDT and = JXN) seemed to be impeccably on frequency with perfectly repeating phase - = I speculate that these signals are actually still being used for submarine = VLF navigation. German DHO was also stable but a few ppb above nominal 23.= 4 kHz. French HWU was on frequency, but the phase seemed to have some rando= m variations, which might spoil the application for our purpose. But we cou= ld fix this by comparing simultaneous observations in Europe and America. Best 73, Markus =20 =20 -----Urspr=C3=BCngliche Mitteilung-----=20 Von: Paul Nicholson An: rsgb_lf_group Cc: Mike Smith Verschickt: Fr, 29. Dez 2017 8:53 Betreff: Re: LF: VLF NA Ebnaut Stefan wrote: > I'm disappointed. I can imagine your frustration. I've examined the software at Forest and all appears to be working fine, at least as well as my own. Occasional timing breaks when the sound card has an overrun or DMA error, but these are padded over in the signal extraction after vtread, so no problem there. > I remember i asked if the phase of the Alphas, JXN and HWU > is reproducable or if it shows the same behaviour. I remember. But I'm not sure of the value. If we see distant MSK phase changing (which we probably will), is it caused by the rx or the propagation? Alpha signals are a bit tricky to use when there are two transmitters interleaved in the signal being averaged. I'll ask Mike if he can set up a near field reference which we can measure for a few days. Meanwhile the best reference is W4DEX, a very strong signal at range 254 km. Can actually see Dex's EbNaut on a spectrogram! Compare W4DEX phase at three sites over 3 days: W4DEX at Forest 26/27 +20.3 dB phase -45.0 27/28 +21.2 dB phase 115.9 shift +160.9 28/29 +20.4 dB phase -14.0 shift -129.9 W4DEX at Hawley 26/27 +5.7 dB phase 115.9 27/28 +6.0 dB phase -96.8 shift +147.3 28/29 +1.3 dB phase -163.5 shift -66.7 W4DEX at Todmorden 26/27 +10.7 dB phase 68.4 27/28 +9.2 dB phase -140.9 shift +150.7 28/29 +5.4 dB phase 108.7 shift -110.4 W4DEX signal phase is not repeating night-to-night but we're seeing roughly the same shifts at Forest and Todmorden, and also at Hawley when the signal is strong enough for a good measurement. Forest rx is looking fine here, so why the phase changes on VO1NA? VO1NA at Forest 26/27 -1.5 dB phase -121.1 27/28 -0.1 dB phase 5.1 28/29 +3.7 dB phase -33.0 VO1NA at Todmorden 26/27 +13.0 dB phase -170.4 27/28 +12.3 dB phase -169.3 28/29 +11.4 dB phase -175.0 VO1NA at Bielefeld 26/27 +3.0 dB phase +11.0 27/28 +2.7 dB phase -8.1 28/29 -3.8 dB Perhaps just the weakness of the signal at Forest? Eb/N0 -0.1 =3D S/N 7.5 dB in the 30.6 uHz bandwidth in which the phase is measured. -- Paul Nicholson -- ------=_Part_591_1958612929.1514544436545 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Paul, Stefan,

my thought was that= HWU 18.3 kHz might be near enough to serve as a guide to propagationa= l phase changes on 17.47 kHz, ultimately allowing phase corrections before = stacking.

But I'm not sure about the stability of that specific tra= nsmitter. Some time around 2007, I used SpecLab's phase-amplitude-monitors = (PAM) to observe diurnals on several MSK stations. 1pps lock wasn't av= ailable to me at the time, so I used a 10 kHz reference from= a Jupiter GPS, which produced useful measurements despite occasional glitc= hes due to soundcard overruns. The NATO transmitters (GBZ, GQD, NAA, NML, N= LK, NWC, presumably also NPM, NDT and JXN) seemed to be impeccably on frequ= ency with perfectly repeating phase - I speculate that these signals&n= bsp;are actually still being used for submarine VLF navigation. &= nbsp;German DHO was also stable but a few ppb above nominal 23.4 kHz. = French HWU was on frequency, but the phase seemed to have some ra= ndom variations, which might spoil the application for our purpose. Bu= t we could fix this by comparing simultaneous observations in Europe a= nd America.

Best 73,
Markus  

  
-----Urspr=C3=BCngliche Mitteilung-----
Von: Pa= ul Nicholson <vlf0403@abelian.org>
An: rsgb_lf_group = <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Cc: Mike Smith <mic= hael.smith20@gmail.com>
Verschickt: Fr, 29. Dez 2017 8:5= 3
Betreff: Re: LF: VLF NA Ebnaut


Stefan wrote:

> I'm disappointed.

I can imagine yo= ur frustration.

I've examined the software= at Forest and all appears to be
working fine, at least as = well as my own. Occasional timing
breaks when the sound ca= rd has an overrun or DMA error, but
these are padded over i= n the signal extraction after vtread,
so no problem there.<= br abp=3D"2748">
> I remember i asked if the phase of t= he Alphas, JXN and HWU
> is reproducable or if it shows= the same behaviour.

I remember. But I'm = not sure of the value. If we see distant
MSK phase changin= g (which we probably will), is it caused by
the rx or the p= ropagation? Alpha signals are a bit tricky
to use when th= ere are two transmitters interleaved in the
signal being av= eraged.

I'll ask Mike if he can set up a n= ear field reference which
we can measure for a few days.
Meanwhile the best reference is W4DEX, a ver= y strong signal at
range 254 km. Can actually see Dex's Eb= Naut on a spectrogram!

Compare W4DEX phase= at three sites over 3 days:

W4DEX at Fo= rest
26/27 +20.3 dB phase -45.0
27/28 +2= 1.2 dB phase 115.9 shift +160.9
28/29 +20.4 dB phase -14.= 0 shift -129.9

W4DEX at Hawley
26/27 +5.7 dB phase 115.9
27/28 +6.0 dB phase= -96.8 shift +147.3
28/29 +1.3 dB phase -163.5 shift -= 66.7

W4DEX at Todmorden
= 26/27 +10.7 dB phase 68.4
27/28 +9.2 dB phase -140.9= shift +150.7
28/29 +5.4 dB phase 108.7 shift -110.4
W4DEX signal phase is not repeating night-to= -night but we're
seeing roughly the same shifts at Forest a= nd Todmorden,
and also at Hawley when the signal is strong = enough for a
good measurement.

Forest rx is looking fine here, so why the phase changes
on VO1NA?

VO1NA at Forest
26/27 -1.5 dB phase -121.1
27/28 -0.1 dB phase 5.1=
28/29 +3.7 dB phase -33.0

VO1NA at Todmorden
26/27 +13.0 dB phase -170.4
27/28 +12.3 dB phase -169.3
28/29 +11.4 dB = phase -175.0

VO1NA at Bielefeld
26/27 +3.0 dB phase +11.0
27/28 +2.7 dB phas= e -8.1
28/29 -3.8 dB

Pe= rhaps just the weakness of the signal at Forest?
Eb/N0 -0.1= =3D S/N 7.5 dB in the 30.6 uHz bandwidth in
which the phas= e is measured.

--
Paul Nic= holson
--

------=_Part_591_1958612929.1514544436545--