Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*VLF\:\s+8270\:\s+now\s+8269\.990Hz\s*$/: 15 ]

Total 15 documents matching your query.

1. Re: VLF: 8270: now 8269.990Hz (score: 1)
Author: Markus Vester <>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 15:21:41 -0400
Thanks Uwe. The late evening may not be ideal in terms of QRN background but let's try anyway. I have pushed out the antenna again (half height due to wind), and restarted the VLF grabbers with EbNau
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2016-03/msg00390.html (13,794 bytes)

2. Re: VLF: 8270: now 8269.990Hz (score: 1)
Author: Markus Vester <>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 05:59:19 -0400
Hi Uwe, Best 73, Markus --Ursprüngliche Mitteilung-- Von: Markus Vester <> An: rsgb_lf_group <> Verschickt: Do, 31 Mrz 2016 9:23 pm Betreff: Re: VLF: 8
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2016-04/msg00003.html (14,867 bytes)

3. Re: VLF: 8270: now 8269.990Hz (score: 1)
Author: DK7FC <>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 14:39:12 +0200
Hello Uwe, Could you try to start a message at 7...8 UTC? 4 hours is fine. You know, the QRN... Meanwhile my GPS module NEO-6M arrived here and i got it working. It consumes 58mA at 3.3V. I'm able to
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2016-04/msg00009.html (18,866 bytes)

4. Re: VLF: 8270: now 8269.990Hz (score: 1)
Author: DK7FC <>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 14:44:40 +0200
Hi Paul, Am 01.04.2016 13:51, schrieb Paul Nicholson: For 2 char messages with 16 bit CRC, the max useful list length is probably around 1k but I don't yet know where the optimum is. Beyond a certain
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2016-04/msg00010.html (10,824 bytes)

5. Re: VLF: 8270: now 8269.990Hz (score: 1)
Author: DK7FC <>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 15:40:49 +0200
Hello Uwe, Well, i'm also getting the message "GL" :-) Are you sure it was not GL? ;-) No other decodes. Sorry. But we will make it soon, the situation is always improving. 73, Stefan Am 01.04.2016 1
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2016-04/msg00013.html (12,918 bytes)

6. Re: VLF: 8270: now 8269.990Hz (score: 1)
Author: Paul Nicholson <>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 14:19:44 +0000
Quite a coincidence, or maybe something more subtle. GL differs from the correct message in 186 of the 368 symbols, so it is not a near miss in terms of hamming distance. Curious. -- Paul Nicholson -
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2016-04/msg00015.html (10,686 bytes)

7. Re: VLF: 8270: now 8269.990Hz (score: 1)
Author: Markus Vester <>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 10:23:44 -0400
GL, really? Very strange. Synchronous noise all over Germany? 73, Markus --Ursprüngliche Mitteilung-- Von: DK7FC <> An: rsgb_lf_group <> Verschickt:
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2016-04/msg00016.html (14,386 bytes)

8. Re: VLF: 8270: now 8269.990Hz (score: 1)
Author: Paul Nicholson <>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 15:57:47 +0000
I grabbed a recording from Bielefeld via Wolf's online receiver. Got the correct message at rank 3721 Eb/N0 = -1.6 dB, BER 41.8%, there were no stronger false decodes, so that's a genuine detection a
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2016-04/msg00017.html (10,941 bytes)

9. Re: VLF: 8270: now 8269.990Hz (score: 1)
Author: "Markus Vester" <>
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2016 00:08:55 +0200
The notion of correlated noise leading to identical false decodes is intriguing. But with our receivers being five wavelengths apart, a spatially distributed noise source (like a thunderstorm) would
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2016-04/msg00025.html (17,122 bytes)

10. Re: VLF: 8270: now 8269.990Hz (score: 1)
Author: Laurence KL7 L <>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 16:57:25 -0800
The notion of correlated noise leading to identical false decodes is intriguing. But with our receivers being five wavelengths apart, a spatially distributed noise source (like a thunderstorm) would
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2016-04/msg00026.html (17,407 bytes)

11. Re: VLF: 8270: now 8269.990Hz (score: 1)
Author: "Markus Vester" <>
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2016 10:59:57 +0200
Hi Uwe, now around 9 UT, the band appears to be much more quiet. Would you like to make another attempt? BTW Yesterday morning your carrier became invisible on Paul's spectrogram between 7 and 11 UT.
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2016-04/msg00029.html (20,756 bytes)

12. Re: VLF: 8270: now 8269.990Hz (score: 1)
Author: Paul Nicholson <>
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2016 19:09:52 +0000
Thanks I'm looking at those. Your wav 04010012.wav contains only samples values of +/- 1, eg sample ch1 ch2 0 1 1 1 1 -1 3 -1 1 4 -1 1 5 -1 -1 6 -1 1 ... Stefan's dk7fc_04010002.wav has samples like
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2016-04/msg00041.html (10,430 bytes)

13. Re: VLF: 8270: now 8269.990Hz (score: 1)
Author: "Markus Vester" <>
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 00:13:18 +0200
Hi Paul, that shouldn't be so... According to my favourite hex editor, I get the same result as you for Stefan's samples. But my first samples should be 698.0 1628.0 2096.01 -4322.74 1390.22 -914.946
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2016-04/msg00045.html (14,235 bytes)

14. Re: VLF: 8270: now 8269.990Hz (score: 1)
Author: Paul Nicholson <>
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2016 06:19:40 +0000
Thanks, I see what's happening. It's the SoX utility which I use to convert the .wav to a data stream. The stupid program assumes that audio samples, even when using IEEE float formats, are restricte
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2016-04/msg00046.html (10,198 bytes)

15. Re: VLF: 8270: now 8269.990Hz (score: 1)
Author: DK7FC <>
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2016 12:18:58 +0200
Uwe, VLF, I can see DJ8WX today in the '6000' window, see attachment. I bet it will be a good decode! Now going to do a trip to the tree in nice wx here :-) 73, Stefan Attachment: 6000.jpg Descriptio
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2016-04/msg00047.html (10,311 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu