Okay. A little 3586B hacking was required, but here are some wide-band
results: http://www.jks.com/wwvb/wwvb.html#wideband
Thanks very much. This data shows the full-bandwidth WWVB signal very
well. Attached are some plots and an octave script.
The first plot shows the demodulated WWVB
In message 20120320031431.bf564800...@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net, Hal Mu
rray writes:
Could somebody please say a bit more about that area. My Shannon level
theory is weak.
Why does more transitions help anything? Or what does it help?
The transitions (where the phase change!) are what
The transitions (where the phase change!) are what you correlate,
the more, the better S/N you get.
Yes---it's too bad that the proposed WWVB changes don't increase the
number of transitions at all. Could they not do the
low-modulation-index DCF77-like signal on top of the BPSK? That is,
put
Jeeze the answers simple DCF is metric and wwvb in english.
They never work correctly together. ;-)
Regards
Paul
WB8TSL
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Peter Monta pmo...@gmail.com wrote:
The transitions (where the phase change!) are what you correlate,
the more, the better S/N you get.
On Mar 20, 2012, at 4:18 AM, Peter Monta wrote:
John, if you're reading this, would your receiver be capable of
recording with wider RF bandwidth? Your recordings made during the
test period have a bandwidth of about 30 Hz; can it go any wider? I
think your web page says you're using an
On 18 Mar, 2012, at 10:52 , John Seamons wrote:
They do talk about using the 11-bit Barker code for autocorrelation. But the
sync bits transmitted only match the Barker code if you interpret them a
little bit out-of-order.
The part of the paper that talked about the Barker code confused me
What makes me wonder: Why don't they adapt the DCF77 implementation? Is
it the not invented here syndrome?
At it looks like they never heard of Kasami sequences.
- Henry
Dennis Ferguson schrieb:
On 18 Mar, 2012, at 10:52 , John Seamons wrote:
They do talk about using the 11-bit Barker
Hi Henry:
There are millions of WWVB clocks in use and the new signal must be fully
compatible with them.
Have Fun,
Brooke Clarke
http://www.PRC68.com
http://www.end2partygovernment.com/Brooke4Congress.html
ehydra wrote:
What makes me wonder: Why don't they adapt the DCF77 implementation?
Hm. I had a quick look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWVB
I cannot see why it won't work with the DCF77 scheme. The carrier is
always on-air. Do I miss something? To low bandwidth of the transmitting
antenna?
Sorry, I didn't followed the thread in whole.
- Henry
Brooke Clarke schrieb:
Hi
DCF77's AM modulation is a much better fit for what they did, and a
much better design in general. All the useful phase modulation needs
to be carried by the carrier at full power. DCF77's AM modulation drops
the carrier power for only 100 ms or 200 ms at the beginning of the second,
which gives
It is also the case the DCF77's phase modulation probably isn't as good as
it could be if the goal is to find it in the noise since it only swings +/-
15 degrees rather than +/- 90. Its big advantage might be that it is high
speed, with lots of transitions, so you can probably measure phase
On Mar 16, 2012, at 1:32 AM, Peter Monta wrote:
Attached are some more renderings of John Seamons' WWVB data. This is
what one might expect from a receiver that knows when the phase
reversals happen and takes them out noiselessly---re-reversing the
out-of-phase bursts to recover an
12 matches
Mail list logo
