To: | [email protected] |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: LF: Would slower QRSS help? |
From: | Paul Nicholson <[email protected]> |
Date: | Sun, 02 Mar 2014 17:16:42 +0000 |
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 [email protected]) smtp.mail=[email protected] |
Delivered-to: | [email protected] |
In-reply-to: | <[email protected]> |
References: | <[email protected]>,<B05C8EC5C7854E948A857BF8EDB83C9D@White> <[email protected]> |
Reply-to: | [email protected] |
Sender: | [email protected] |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130106 Thunderbird/17.0.2 |
> ... 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 -- |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | RE: LF: Would slower QRSS help?, LZ |
---|---|
Next by Date: | RE: LF: Would slower QRSS help?, Bob Raide |
Previous by Thread: | RE: LF: Would slower QRSS help?, LZ |
Next by Thread: | RE: LF: Would slower QRSS help?, Bob Raide |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |