Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

rsgb_lf_group
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: ULF: 5 wavelengths on the 101 km band? Valid or not?

To: <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: ULF: 5 wavelengths on the 101 km band? Valid or not?
From: <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 13:09:54 -0500
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20161114; t=1486836597; bh=kF7zcQDOBRK0Gfc7FNs653xoFVgu9trdFXw8M/vt5w4=; h=Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=UzC+Djfw4/O8amtKnlb+wZjsCiEvkFAvAlj1M7xUgwpkyXvt/CkDni4gA/WqMGjlo tRQ1GP9tWaR+ojKCG8DwoaposfY4QImmsQ038G5skvxwXmrdXDM6hzcy5wAz6GKW1j N6w372Q4zc2Nroi+rUMPUnohAoBI5EAQQw0ht0bvtGjx3XTe4nqZJHZO4ki5mmEbWH DAV+F434Pbw42osCkODNPnLK2XCr6v9cTp3Ng5yUtEUy5umTjqhX80AViKzkfigOQD BzLK4tntX/KSAmgyUXUnU4WdyacCkR5sDcEPagMogr9W3CPbzZDpJtGaKDkeE3rI55 msHny/Gt66UWA==
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
Thread-index: AQI8EeajfBvq/xzO+8SkCnFLMtTAeAE7wPbfoIcIcfA=
Paul,

I'm guessing that your 3 sigma to 4 sigma estimate is based on a comparison of 
the 2970Hz pixels' amplitudes to surrounding pixels' amplitudes during the time 
that Stefan was transmitting; is that a correct guess?

If so, do you know of (or suspect that there could be) a numerical adjustment 
to confidence level based on/off time coherence (the close agreement between 
observed received signal on and off times and known transmitter on and off 
times, where off times include times long before and long after transmission)?  
In other words, could there be a numerical adjustment to confidence level, that 
includes acknowledgement of the observed close temporal alignment of long 
absence of received and transmitted signals?
(the above independent of the knowledge of Stefan's TX frequency)

In a similar context, do you suspect that there could be a numerical adjustment 
to confidence level based on (a) time-agnostic knowledge that energy at 2970Hz 
is likely to be higher than at surrounding frequencies because of a known 
transmission at 2970Hz, combined with (b) correlation of transmit spectrum with 
received spectrum (analogous perhaps to a temporal correlation)

I have as many reasons for thinking that both of the above double-count (i.e. 
that they have already been accounted for) as for thinking that they have 
independent validity; can you comment?

Thanks,

Jim AA5BW 



-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Nicholson
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2017 10:56 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: ULF: 5 wavelengths on the 101 km band? Valid or not?


I scraped the pixels off the Cumiana spectrogram, (summing each row) and did my 
best guess of reversing the mapping of power to pixel brightness.

  http://abelian.org/vlf/tmp/170211a.png

2970 is the strongest line.  At least 3 sigma, maybe 4, depending on how you 
treat the lumpy floor.  A physicist would insist on 5 sigma but the fact that 
the peak is at exactly the right frequency is significant in itself.

Markus just wrote:

 > In my humble opinion, this is clearly a successful  > detection.

I was doubtful looking at the spectrogram but having plotted the pixels I am 
convinced.

Spectrograms aren't good for this sort of thing.  Oh
for a spectrum plot!   I couldn't get anything from
the stream recording, too many timing breaks on the uplink.

Best I can get in Todmorden is 2 and a bit sigma using just the daytime signal 
in 3.9 uHz.  Not significant at all.  Would need at least another 7 days of 
transmission.

--
Paul Nicholson
--



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