Hello Bjarne, Very interesting story. Could it be that it sounds like the attached file. I m calling it the corkscrew qrm. I noticed it already several timesMessage 1 of 48 , Jul 9View SourceHello Bjarne,Very interesting story. Could it be that it sounds like the attached file. I'm calling it the corkscrew qrm. I noticed it already several times during our mid winter DX-peditions in Walsoorden, Zeeland, The Netherlands. I always thought it had something to do with snow or rain but was never really confirmed by other DXers.73,Guido.
Van: perseus_SDR@yahoogroups.com [mailto:perseus_SDR@yahoogroups.com] Namens bjarnemjelde
Verzonden: dinsdag 9 juli 2013 20:08
Onderwerp: [perseus_SDR] Re: Fierce competition
To Leif and Jürgen:
The blowing snow noise is somewhat different to the falling snow/rain noise. Mostly, falling snow or rain is not a problem. Sometimes in combination with wind it is. Blowing snow is quite a different matter: It can best be described as a Formula One car cranking the RPM up to 18000.
I use insulated wires. However I have tested uninsulated steel and aluminium wires and there is no noticeable difference in noise pickup.
I can't say much about other antenna types. The only other antenna type I have up is the Mini-Whip and to my memory I haven't tested the blowing snow conditions with the M-W.
I have yet to find a noise blanker which can eliminate, or even slightly reduce blowing snow noise. It has the capacity to cover all but the strongest signals. The good thing is that when the wind calms down, the noise disappears...
The wind needs to be around 12 m/s, and of course there must be quite a bit of snow around, as percipitation or dry, light new-fallen snow on the ground.
Jürgen, no I have no recordings. SDR recordings with this kind of noise are deleted :-)
--- In perseus_SDR@yahoogroups.com, Leif Asbrink <leif@...> wrote:
> Hi Bjarne,
> > Leif, somewhat off-topic but on the web page
> > you referred to, you asked: Is there a similar
> > phenomenon static snow?
> Very interesting:-)
> I just wonder if/how the discharges differ. A snow-flake
> presumably has a much smaller mass than a typical
> static rain droplet. Even so it might have a fairly
> large surface area so its capacitance might not differ
> too much from that of a nearly spherical water ball(??)
> > Indeed there is. Both falling snow, and blowing snow.
> > I have lots of experience with both... With blowing
> > snow, the audio frequency of the interference vary
> > with the wind speed.
> What is your experience with different antenna types?
> I guess a magnetic loop would not be very sensitive
> while a small whip antenna might be very sensitive
> even though the number of hits would be small because
> of the size.
> > As for the bandwidth discussion: As a MW DX-er I don't
> > need more than the Perseus 1600 kHz span. I own a G33DDC
> > which can record 4 MHz, but I almost always use its
> > 1250 kHz setting.
> What about blanking static snow? Did you find a noise
> blanker that helps or is static snow fatal for the
> reception of weak signals?
> Leif / SM5BSZ
Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht.
Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com
Versie: 2013.0.3349 / Virusdatabase: 3204/6477 - datum van uitgifte: 07/09/13
Hello Nico, ... I am afraid you apply a conventional model which is not applicable in the QRN-fighting context. Consider a sampling rate of 4 MHz. Apply aMessage 48 of 48 , Jul 18View SourceHello Nico,
> If one computes the number of taps of a FIR decimationI am afraid you apply a "conventional" model which is
> filter with a decent performance (say 0.1 dB in-band ripple
> and 100 dB alias image rejection) he discover a simple
> rule of thumb:
> N =(about) 4*D/(1-B/Fco)
> N is the required decimation filter number of taps
> D is the decimation factor
> B/Fco is ratio between the desired output alias free bandwidth and the output sampling frequency.
> Since after filtering the decimator takes one output every D
> input samples, the output impulse response is no more
> than N/D samples long, that's to say:
> N/D =(about) 4/(1-B/Fco)
> Note that the length of the output impulse response
> *does not* depend on the output sampling frequency, but just on the B/Fco ratio.
> If such a ratio is high the output pulse can be quite long.
not applicable in the QRN-fighting context.
Consider a sampling rate of 4 MHz.
Apply a FIR filter that has say 0.1 dB in-band ripple
and a -1 dB point at say 0.8 MHz. The -20 dB point should
be at 2 MHz and the -100 dB point at 3.2 MHz. The alias-free
range (-100 dB) would be +/- 0.8 MHz but a clever DSP software
could compensate for the fall-off between say 0.8 and 1.6 MHz
to provide a perfectly flat passband of 3.2 MHz or so. The alias
suppression at the corner frequencies would be poor. Maybe 20 dB,
but I do not think that would impair the noise-fighting.
The useful bandwidth for receiving would be 1.6 MHz only and
not any improvement over the 2 MHz sampling. The purpose of the
faster sampling would only be to eliminate certain interference
> In Perseus the decimation filter has been designed so thatYes.
> the alias-free bandwidth is 80% the output sampling frequency
> (1.6 MHz when the sampling rate is 2 MS/s) which is a good
> compromise between the decimation filters complexity and
> the efficiency of the digital signal processing made on the PC.
> At such a B/Fco ratio you can expect that each output pulse
> due to an istantaneous glitch at the receiver input is
> approximately 4/(1-0.8) = 20 samples long whatever the
> output sampling frequency is.
> You can't really resolve it into a single pulse even ifIn Linrad, the PC software will take the fourier transform of the
> the output sampling frequency were 40 MS/s. It will
> always be 20 samples long.
input data stream, divide it by the fourier transform of the
impulse response of the hardware and multiply it by a "desired
pulse response" This way the pulse length is made shorter than 20
samples and at the same time the ~0.1 dB ripple is removed.
The length of the pulse is determined by the "desired pulse response"
which depends on the skirt steepness that the user has decided.
The smart blanker knows the exact shape of the pulse and its length
so it does not matter that the pulse is long in terms of samples.
I am aware that very few operators use Linrad and that only
a very small fraction of the users care to calibrate their
systems properly. I have tried to explain the theory, but I
do not think I have been sucessful at all. I am interested
in static rain at high bandwidth because I have a feeling
recordings would show a dramatic difference between the
Linrad blanker and other blankers.
> Of course 20 samples at 40 MS/s are a 0.5us interval,Yes:-)
> which is a much shorter time interval than that obtained
> if the sample rate were 2 MS/s but instead of increasing
> the output sample rate one can obtain the same result
> simply relaxing the B/Fco requirement.
> If the B/Fco ratio were 60% instead of 80% the outputYes:-) This is what I advocate. 4 MHz sampling and
> pulse lenght would be the half the original, if it were
> 40% one third and if it were 20% one fourth of it, a
> mere 5 samples interval (2.5us @ 2MS/s), which is even
> the half of what one could obtain attempting to double
> the output sampling frequency (and mantaining the
> original 80% B/Fco ratio).
> The penalty is that the the alias free bandwidth
> is much less than the output sample rate...
40% alias-free bandwidth. I also want the -10 dB point
to be fairly high, maybe 80% of Nyquist.
> but who cares if we would just be satisfied to (carefully)As far as I undersdtand it is impossible to clean up a 200 kHz
> clean-up a not-so-wide 200 kHz bandwidth out of a 2 MS/s
> IQ stream?
> And if it works, wouldn't it be better than obtaining the
> same result using 4 MS/s maybe overloading a poor man CPU?
wide segment of a 2MS/s IQ stream if the (random) secondary
pulses can not be resolved. From old experience as well as from
the one and only wideband recording at my disposal a bandwidth
of 1.6 MHz is marginal. It may or it may not work.
> BTW, making a new 4MS/s DDC would not be impossible butFive years later it is very likely that a factor of two is OK:-)
> as I haven't implemented it yet I can't say that what
> was initially conceived for a much smaller output sample
> rate could sustain it (in 2008 I was even not sure that
> the 2 MS/s rate could really work).