At 09:51 PM 1/18/2008, you wrote:
>On Saturday 19 January 2008 00:15, Walter Salmaniw wrote:
>> I'm hearing quite nice moon bounce best using USB tuned to 6791.8
>> USB.  HAARP itself is very loud at S9+10 or more, whereas the moon
>> bounce is quite weak, heard in that 3 second time frame after the 2
>> sec HAARP signal.  CW seemed to work (exactly on 6792.5, but the
>> bounce wasn't so obvious, nor was it very good on LSB for some
>> reason.  The bounce was well heard at 05:13 UTC, but seems to come
>> and go  (for instance nothing now at 05:14:45).  Time to play with
>> my various antennae.......Walt in Victoria
>
>I'm hearing it here too, also using USB.  The HAARP skywave signal is 
>not tremendously strong - more like S1-2, with considerable fading.  
>The moon bounce echo is in and out of the noise, and was better near 
>the beginning than now (0545 UTC).  It's easily seen on a spectrogram 
>display, however, and it has quite a bit of Doppler shift - the echo 
>is about 4 Hz lower than the skywave signal, and its trace is much 
>less "fuzzy".  Interesting stuff!
>
>Barry


Hi, Barry (and Don).  The 7407.5 is a lot weaker here in Victoria.  The 
interesting thing is that the moon bounce portion, at times, is at the same 
strength as the HAARP signal itself!  Again, I haven't fiddled with the SDR 
span to measure
the exact moon bounce frequency, but they are obviously very close.  I guess I 
wouldn't be able to differentiate a few Hz anyway.  From the SDR, the HAARP 
signals are only 10 to 15 dB above the noise floor, and it's impossible
to differentiate the HAARP from the moon bounce.  They kind of flow into one 
another, so sometimes it's sounding like a continuous tone.  Yes, sure is 
interesting, but wouldn't a voice transmission be really awesome!  .....Walt.


_______________________________________________
IRCA mailing list
[email protected]
http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca

Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the original 
contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the IRCA, its 
editors, publishing staff, or officers

For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org

To Post a message: [email protected]

Reply via email to