To: | [email protected] |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: LF: VLF traces |
From: | Andy Talbot <[email protected]> |
Date: | Fri, 11 Mar 2011 22:28:54 +0000 |
Dkim-signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=wJR8iQLxP9E7b1Ion18O5tRq7DZ2RU/3hYq/A1oc88w=; b=ftAK3wIz9ESGd/8JzoQegPPvSU84kAnigClln1rv+XKKOYwUjSIzvcwQETchWws9IG /0knOXKBTQT5Tx4kYzMWDmujC3KkVHLNSC6EBG1FV6G80m0/hJCHGMdkJFC3X6gXUDrG VpIyHClYdewQS6V5WdJAiDcEuHdS1QyUVwJVY= |
Domainkey-signature: | a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=ujIK8kju5/6Gfebfr3aREWnMd+1ShFsIoKn4cgLrbCZkDqZLV7S80X3I+y9jeD5Xgm Ph62W1moWZA6MMIdLDZo3/B4bIy9kuDQS2ozOLtORl47eWtQoMqcHGmXCbUgG/h6791j KKjtD5tM6ziOG4VsCYjbmty4jFX+44komWdso= |
Domainkey-status: | good (testing) |
In-reply-to: | <D347A1D1854746FE92B7E06C0C286E0D@White> |
References: | <006301cbe00d$762f0220$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <D347A1D1854746FE92B7E06C0C286E0D@White> |
Reply-to: | [email protected] |
Sender: | [email protected] |
Can I point out that a carier that appears at a known time and on a known frequency IS modulated. It is on off keyed. (Well...off/on anyway :-) The only way that a carrier can be unmodulated is if it has been there since the beginning of (RF)time and is never switched off, ever, never, before the end of (RF)time. Its appearance or disappearance is information; what that info means depends on how it has been coded.
Any switching, at all, introduces modulation and widens the bandwidth, and therefore counts as a means of identification if the meaning of the on/off is pre-arranged.
In comms-theory-speak If G9BOF makes the announcement "I'll be transmitting on Sunday at 1300z on 8910.0004Hz" he has now generated a codebook. The appearance of the carrier at that point in time indicates a single bit of information, which by reference to the code boook means G9BOF is sending a '1'. No carrier detected,he is sending a '0', or there has been a bit error. In other words, no error correction.or detection has been performed. If G9BOF now makes another announcement that "I'll switch it off at 2358z" he has added another entry to the code book. If the carrier really does go off then, the two bits of information together make a dual-redundant pair, the minimum needed for error detection.
If G9BOF also makes the statement that "my signal is stable and accurate to 1mHz" and another signal appears in the passband that is 2mHz away, or wobbles by 1.5mHz, then is is not G9BOF, and error detection will flag it as not valid. If a receiving station cannot detect this error, and incorrectly assesses the carrier then the Rx has used the wrong codebook, and therefore cannot be deemed to be listening to G9BOF at all.
All a rather extreme and somewhat petty example of coding theory and error detection, but its exactly the same as simple Hamming codes all the way thorough to reed Solomon. And... I'm not sure how G9BOF getting his frequency or time wrong would fit into the coding theory.
So, conclusion, a carrier as stable and on the exact frequency as stated, at the right time is going to be valid. If you have no way of proving it really is as stable as quoted, or in the right place, you've no right to question its validity.
And anyway, how many spurious signals can even give any pretence to being stable in these terms - if you think they are, get a better receiver. We are talking about 0.1ppm over the duration of a signalling element as a minimum frequency stability requirement for most serious VLF through LF signalling - which means a quite good TCXO, an average to middling OCXO or ideally a locked source. If you can't manage this, do not cry 'foul' when others do.
Andy
On 11 March 2011 21:30, Markus Vester <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Mal, |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: LF: grabber, Stefan Schäfer |
---|---|
Next by Date: | LF: Re: VLF Stability and soundcard locking, James Moritz |
Previous by Thread: | Re: LF: VLF traces, Markus Vester |
Next by Thread: | Re: LF: VLF traces, Stefan Schäfer |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |