Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

rsgb_lf_group
[Top] [All Lists]

LF: Re: T/A JAN 31

To: [email protected]
Subject: LF: Re: T/A JAN 31
From: "dj9dw" <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:26:38 +0100
Delivery-date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:08:41 +0000
Envelope-to: [email protected]
References: <003301c6263d$8c89cee0$0100a8c0@jpmpcportable> <002101c6264f$35250bd0$2201a8c0@pcroelof>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
Hi Roelof and group,
in my location - JO40LE - close to Mainflingen -DCF - I had to increase BW
for better rx-performence. The noise was caused by databursts from that
nearby commercial LF-TX. Narrow band and "good" shape-factor in the
IF-Filters meant tendency to ring. We are in the time-domain with it.
IF-filters with Gaussconfiguration prooved to be much more useful in this my
case.
Facit: the more steady the noise, the more narrow the BW can be choosen.
But yet, never seen any TA so far. We work on it.
Best regards,
Peter, dj9dw

----- Original Message ----- From: "Roelof Bakker" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 11:15 AM
Subject: LF: T/A JAN 31


Hello all,

Last night I tried ARGO.
The band started very noisy, but I got captures of WD2XKO and WD2XGJ.
VO1NA appeared later.

I have heard rumours that ARGO and SpecLab need some background noise to
compare the signals against and hence should work better with a (relative)
wider bandwidth.
At present, I am using a 12 Hz bandwidth and both programs seem to work
fine.
Can anyone shed some light on this?

Thank you in advance,

Roelof Bakker, pa0rdt





<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>