Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

rsgb_lf_group
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: LF: M0BMU WOLF beacon

To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: LF: M0BMU WOLF beacon
From: "James Moritz" <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:16:44 -0000
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=btopenworld.com; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE; b=eWa4U0hM5NwhDzylg1tLaJ9nYvjcKB+nCCqfOvmQsF1m/73ZL1lEkmzmbkn8jpfikLrfXGDBXU9bI6/f+VraM4ybJKVde3eRFBGn2jVj3ly8/1zCKnyOx/fXGIQmQXLj+3LBZi4QYw8IXlNllOh91MlXqOv0g+nJJXkVDBqTyjo= ;
Domainkey-status: good (testing)
References: <003601c85bb2$ced17940$0100007f@w4o8m9> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
Dear LF Group,

The WOLF beacon is now running again from 2200utc. I am now using WOLF 20
mode, "by popular request". Frequency is 503.800 as before - any reports
welcome, or comparison with the previous WOLF 10 sigs. The idea is that the
faster mode may be beneficial for short-duration peaks in signal strength
occuring on 500kHz.

Thanks for  the reports from last night. The results of my own monitoring of
the signal is that it starts off about 0.1Hz high, with the frequency
falling quickly at first then levelling out to very close to the nominal
(+/-0.01Hz) after an hour or so. This is due to using the TCXO inside the
IC718 as the frequency reference - the rig gets quite warm even though only
providing a few watts for the transverter, so takes a while to reach thermal
equilibrium. But in any case, this should be no problem for the WOLF
decoder.

Cheers, Jim Moritz
73 de M0BMU

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hartmut Wolff" <[email protected]>
To: "John Andrews" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: LF: M0BMU WOLF beacon


> John,
>
> > I'm curious about the >0.1Hz drift during the recording period. Do you
> > think that was happening at your end?
>
> yes, that was happening at my end.



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