To: | [email protected] |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: LF: DCF39 |
From: | [email protected] |
Date: | Tue, 29 Aug 2006 17:18:12 EDT |
Delivered-to: | [email protected] |
Reply-to: | [email protected] |
Sender: | [email protected] |
Dear Alan and Geri, ... I have to confess that I had actually sent an eMail to the EFR back in 2000, suggesting 85% energy savings (and less Luxembourg QRM for us) by reducing idle carrier power by 13 dB (http://members.aol.com/df6nm2/to_efr.txt). For propagation monitoring in sub-Hz bandwidth you would of course get a weaker carrier, but probably not be disturbed by the power change during the relatively wideband FSK telegrams. Anyway I think their current instabilities seem to be related to technical problems rather than intentional actions. One thing I have been pondering is that if we would record the carrier phase evolution locally and distribute it by internet, a distant monitoring station could use that information to deconvolve the received DCF signal and narrow it down from about 0.1 Hz to any sub-milliHz bandwidth, gaining at least 20 dB in sensitivity. We could reference the phase log to GPS-derived 138830 Hz, which would enable the use of coherent signal processing techniques as suggested by G3PLX and others. A practical data format could be IQ pairs at one sample per second, with a new file starting every full hour. 73 de Markus, DF6NM In einer eMail vom 29.08.2006 11:55:50 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit schreibt [email protected]: Hi Geri, mmmm I hope not, because random changes in level will kill it as a |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: LF: DCF39, Alan Melia |
---|---|
Next by Date: | LF: activety 'poll/enquete' for LX, Dick |
Previous by Thread: | Re: LF: DCF39, Alan Melia |
Next by Thread: | LF: dcf39, Laurence KL1X |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |