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,
with all due respect, I very much disagree
here.
Whenever I see a clear trace appear at the right time and
within a milliHz
of a confirmed and correctly calibrated frequency, I
have hardly a doubt
about the validity of the reception. Even more so
if the transmission can be
verified by comparison to a calibrated
grabber in another location.
It seems that the G3KEV antenna does
have excellent sensitivity at VLF. It
would be fantastic if you could
augment that with a stable, properly
calibrated, and narrowband
reception system. SpecLab has made that so easy
now - throw out the
wildly drifting "receiver", connect your antenna
directly to the
soundcard instead, lock to one of your MSK neighbours (GBZ
or GQD),
and your in the game.
Best regards,
Markus
(DF6NM)
From: mal hamilton
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011
5:57 PM
To: rsgb
Subject: LF: VLF traces
I can see a
couple of vy weak traces around 8970 but this is no guarantee
who it
might be because there is no ID. Frequency alone is not a
VALID
report- it could be
anything.
G3KEV
