Re: Housekeeping on Yahoo VLF
but then, any waveform which doesn't contain negative frequencies wouldn't be a real one...
--- 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?
- "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.
- 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
I have added a Capture in Photos of a new 82Hz 0500 UTC transmission
which is now a regular feature.
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.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]