Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Housekeeping on Yahoo VLF

Expand Messages
  • Markus
    Tom, but then, any waveform which doesn t contain negative frequencies wouldn t be a real one... 73, Markus
    Message 1 of 25 , Jun 1, 2012
      Tom,

      but then, any waveform which doesn't contain negative frequencies wouldn't be a real one...

      73, Markus


      --- In VLF_Group@yahoogroups.com, Tom Becker <gtbecker@...> wrote:
      >
      > > ... Below DC would be no C.
      >
      > Tongue-in-cheek, Kurt.
      >
      > DC conveys no information, and negative frequencies aren't, ah, real. Trying to DX either would be ultimately challenging, no?
      >
      >
      > Tom
      >
    • Facility 406 DM09
      but then, any waveform which doesn t contain negative frequencies wouldn t be a real one... Sure, it d be half-wave. Of course it s referenced to something,
      Message 2 of 25 , Jun 1, 2012
        "but then, any waveform which doesn't contain negative frequencies wouldn't
        be a real one..."

        Sure, it'd be half-wave. Of course it's referenced to something, both
        halves could still be relatively postive, or negative.

        Kurt
      • g3zjo
        Thanks James. Yes of course you are right, I was thinking more of the socially accepted place and where there is interest. Groups mostly tend to have a wide
        Message 3 of 25 , Jun 4, 2012
          Thanks James. Yes of course you are right, I was thinking more of the
          socially accepted place and where there is interest.

          Groups mostly tend to have a wide scope, even the LF Group has a lot of
          members interested in 82Hz. I find some of my best lines of interest
          have been due to strictly OT postings about diverse subjects.

          Perhaps as long as VLF Photos doesn't burst at the seams I will leave
          them here.
          I have added a Capture in Photos of a new 82Hz 0500 UTC transmission
          which is now a regular feature.

          Eddie

          On 30/05/2012 23:30, James wrote:
          >
          > Ok Eddie. By the definitions we use, 82Hz would fall in the purview of
          > ELF which is covered by the ULFELF group.
          > We classify ULF as anything below 5Hz and Ultra-ULF below .1Hz.
          > Jim
          >



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.