Sri Om
Frequency and some carrier is NOT PROOF also 120 sec dot is too slow for
this type of experiment, with a kite erratic flight causing QSB and broken
carrier.
I need positive keyed ID to be convinced, there is no room for imagination.
I wish Stefan good luck but no guesswork please.
de mal/g3kev
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander S. Yurkov" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: LF: DK7FC's 2nd VLF TX test...
> Such scepticist you are, Mal. Any data can be analysed. By the way
> frquency is some ID by itself. And certanly we are looking for more
> proof.
>
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, mal hamilton wrote:
>
> > Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:56:38 -0000
> > From: mal hamilton <[email protected]>
> > Reply-To: [email protected]
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: LF: DK7FC's 2nd VLF TX test...
> >
> > It is important for ID that the TX was keyed otherwise it could be any
> > carrier. Positive ID is needed otherwise the experiment is meaningless
> > de G3KEV
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Paul Nicholson" <[email protected]>
> > To: <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 7:45 PM
> > Subject: Re: LF: DK7FC's 2nd VLF TX test...
> >
> >
> > > Markus wrote:
> > > > He mentioned he had been attempting QRSS 10 for DF8ZR up
> > > > to about 16:30,
> > >
> > > The signal was strongest up to 15:00, very narrow bandwidth too.
> > >
> > > Then there was a gap until about 15:20 or so, when the signal
> > > came back weaker and with some spread until just after 16:00.
> > >
> > > It is important to know if the tx was CW or keyed during those
> > > times.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Paul Nicholson
> > > --
> > >
> >
>
>
> Regards,
> Alexander
>
>
>
|
