Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

rsgb_lf_group
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: LF: Would slower QRSS help?

To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: LF: Would slower QRSS help?
From: wolf_dl4yhf <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 19:45:49 +0100
Authentication-results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of [email protected]) smtp.mail=[email protected]
Delivered-to: [email protected]
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <91EDCA349BE942929730C480D5D64F7F@White> <[email protected]>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
Hi Markus,

Since I also "suffer" from insufficient bandwidth for a link to my remote receiving site:

What about converting the signal down to 'easily managable audio frequency' (low enough for yet another narrow-band FM link), using a 32.768 kHz 'clock' crystal for the mixer ? With reasonable pre-filtering the image frequency won't hurt much, and even a Gilbert cell mixer (NE/SA612) may get the job done quickly. Not sure if the frequency stability will be good enough for uHz resolution, but considering that in the days of IBM PC XT / AT the system time drift was low (and very predictable), it may work.


73,
  Wolf DL4YHF .


Am 03.03.2014 18:51, schrieb Markus Vester:
Bob,
 
nothing at all in Nuernberg last night. There seemed to be no diurnal change in the background noise level, showing that my receiving setup is not sensitive enough yet. Apparently the current LF-VLF diplexer arrangement is too lossy for direct connection to the soundcard, and in addition the ADC noisefloor is a bit higher above 24 kHz (Sigma-Delta noise shaping?). Will try to redesign the circuit and insert a simple preamp tonight.
 
I have also slowed the grabber window to 424uHz bins, hoping for more long carrier transmissions tonight.
 
Best 73,
Markus (DF6NM)


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