6 Dec
2013
6 Dec
'13
7:48 p.m.
Hi, All:
Recent postings by Fritz and Nick reminded me about my ignomous failure
to decode UAT. In theory, 2.8 s/s ought to be suffice for a 1 mbit/s
signal of UAT, barely, but in practice I wasn't successful. Has anyone
heard about any successes on that front (aside from old postings by
Eric Cottrell)? Is it even realistic?
Cheers,
-- Pete
6 Dec
6 Dec
7:54 p.m.
You have sample data with good signal?
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Pete Zaitcev <zaitcev(a)kotori.zaitcev.us>wrote;wrote:
Hi, All:
Recent postings by Fritz and Nick reminded me about my ignomous failure
to decode UAT. In theory, 2.8 s/s ought to be suffice for a 1 mbit/s
signal of UAT, barely, but in practice I wasn't successful. Has anyone
heard about any successes on that front (aside from old postings by
Eric Cottrell)? Is it even realistic?
Cheers,
-- Pete
9:37 p.m.
I can't really tell, sorry. The waterfall looks like the attached.
The frequency offset is 312.5 kHz for the FSK. I think I see some
dots, but cannot be sure if they are good or not. Hardware receivers
in the area are said to work, but I don't see anything.
-- Pete
On Fri, 6 Dec 2013 10:54:04 -0800
Nick Foster <bistromath(a)gmail.com> wrote:
You have sample data with good signal?
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Pete Zaitcev <zaitcev(a)kotori.zaitcev.us>wrote;wrote:
> Hi, All:
>
> Recent postings by Fritz and Nick reminded me about my ignomous failure
> to decode UAT. In theory, 2.8 s/s ought to be suffice for a 1 mbit/s
> signal of UAT, barely, but in practice I wasn't successful. Has anyone
> heard about any successes on that front (aside from old postings by
> Eric Cottrell)? Is it even realistic?
>
> Cheers,
> -- Pete
4217
days inactive
4217
days old
2 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Nick Foster -
Pete Zaitcev