[TangerineSDR] Filename structure, Node info contents, other stuff to ponder

Phil Erickson phil.erickson at gmail.com
Thu May 7 13:48:09 EDT 2020

Hi all,

  Missed it - sorry; found it in the text.

  FYI, the Nichols description of X and O modes has some very confusing
analogies which are not correct.  Please mail me offline for further


On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 1:47 PM Phil Erickson <phil.erickson at gmail.com>

> Hi all,
>   What is the relevance for attaching the Eric Nichols article from 2010?
> Cheers
> Phil
> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 1:45 PM Kristina Collins <kvc2 at case.edu> wrote:
>> Some notes from this morning's telecon and following discussion...
>> There's more not covered here which John will be incorporating into the
>> next version of the spec. Email me if you'd like to join the weekly telecon
>> for the low-cost PSWS system, which is held Thursdays at 10am EDT.
>> 1) We should clarify what a node is, and is not. In current conception, a
>> node is an experiment being conducted at a location. A user may have
>> multiple different experiments running - for example, one TangerineSDR and
>> one GrapeSSR (custom-built low-cost PSWS) at one location. In this case,
>> the TangerineSDR is a node and the GrapeSSR is a node. All the datasets
>> being collected by the TangerineSDR - magnetometer, temp, lightning, etc. -
>> are associated with the node number for that station. Similarly, all of the
>> frequencies being measured by the GrapeSSR - all WWV and CHU frequencies -
>> will be associated with the node number for that GrapeSSR.
>> 2) It should be noted for those not hanging out on the low-cost/Doppler
>> side of the PSWS project that there are two types of system (so far)
>> collecting Doppler shift data: (A) John's custom board (the aforementioned
>> GrapeSSR, so named because it comes in bunches and because the data
>> ferments into something very nice) and (B) ham rigs collecting data by a
>> method similar to we did for the Festival of Frequency Measurement. This
>> latter set of stations is essentially its own experiment type; we have a
>> few pilot stations running now. As a group, I've been referring to these
>> ham rigs as the Frequency Analysis Network (FAN). A FAN page will be added
>> to the HamSCI website soon.
>> 3) There will be more characters added to the node naming description in
>> order to address the different types of nodes. Again, so far there are
>> three: the Tangerine, the Grape, and regular ol' ham rigs. Rather than
>> these having just node numbers, we can give them alphanumeric strings: for
>> example, NT00087, NG00094, NH00189 might indicate a Tangerine, a Grape and
>> a ham rig respectively. Additionally, we could add more resolution in these
>> letters: I could see using NHG00189 to indicate a ham rig collecting
>> Doppler data which is connected to a GPSDO, and NHN00189 to indicate one
>> which does not have a GPSDO, for example. Adding a D for "development"
>> would also be a way to avoid some of the issues discussed above.
>> Eventually, we will likely want to incorporate more types of experiments.
>> For instance, a station set up to measure X and O propagation (like the one
>> described in KL7AJ's Dec 2010 QST article, attached) could be added in with
>> its own alphanumeric designation in order to set apart its node ID. Bottom
>> line: we have to stay flexible, as we'll be adding experiments and metadata
>> later on that we won't think of now.
>> 4) Important: We will not be using fldigi in the final version of the
>> GrapeSSR. There will be a dedicated program for doing the data collection.
>> FAN stations may still use fldigi for data collection (might not be a bad
>> thing to standardize around, Spectrumlab being another option for taking
>> frequency estimation data) but I don't anticipate any nodes using fldigi to
>> collect data from multiple frequencies at once.
>> 73,
>> -KC
>> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 7:49 AM Phil Erickson via TangerineSDR <
>> tangerinesdr at lists.tapr.org> wrote:
>>> Hi Bill,
>>>   I'll reply off-list with Digital RF information, so as not to use
>>> bandwidth here.
>>> 73
>>> Phil W1PJE
>>> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 7:47 AM Bill Liles via TangerineSDR <
>>> tangerinesdr at lists.tapr.org> wrote:
>>>> Thanks for all the replies.
>>>> My interest is doing oblique ionosondes from transmitters of
>>>> opportunity, including ionosondes. Thus, I want to separate the X and O
>>>> wave signals. Also, I want to see how the path direction (AZ and EL)
>>>> changes with time and from the great circle path. This helps with
>>>> understanding TIDs, especially if I can have multiple sites join in
>>>> collects.
>>>> Thus the requirement for a vector sensor antenna, so actually have 6
>>>> antennas.
>>>> I guess I will be using the DRF format since I would like to collect
>>>> I/Q and time from each antenna at each site. Do DRF files have a separate
>>>> file naming convention?
>>>> It is important to associate which data is associated with which
>>>> antenna so can combine the data properly to get polarization, AZ and EL.
>>>> Thank you.
>>>> Bill NQ6Z
>>>> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 12:40 AM John Gibbons via TangerineSDR <
>>>> tangerinesdr at lists.tapr.org> wrote:
>>>>> Being we don't know the nature of Bill's data collection yet, let's
>>>>> get all the data collection requirements straight before we jump into the
>>>>> solution space to solve the problem...
>>>>> That's the intent of this document - to flush out and to understand
>>>>> ALL of the experiments going on and create a database that can ultimately
>>>>> handle them.  No one understands them all yet.
>>>>> I don't know anything that has been decided for the Tangerine Project
>>>>> which is why they will define their portion of the project.
>>>>> Bill's project is another example of this.  Multiple nodes at the
>>>>> same location may fix one problem, but it creates others.  Not appropriate
>>>>> at this stage to do that yet.
>>>>> Let's get the data collection document to a level of completion that
>>>>> we're all happy with first. Then we can understand and solve the overall
>>>>> data collection problem.
>>>>> John N8OBJ
>>>>> John C. Gibbons
>>>>> Director - Sears Undergraduate Design Laboratory
>>>>> Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
>>>>> Case Western Reserve University
>>>>> 10900 Euclid Ave, Glennan 314
>>>>> Cleveland, Ohio  44106-7071
>>>>> Phone (216) 368-2816 <216-368-2816> FAX (216) 368-6888 <216-368-6888>
>>>>> E-mail: jcg66 at case.edu
>>>>> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 12:14 AM Rob Wiesler via TangerineSDR <
>>>>> tangerinesdr at lists.tapr.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 23:25:41 -0400, John Gibbons wrote:
>>>>>> > Your station is given a node number to define its location. So yes,
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> > have a single node number.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > If the receivers are coordinated to take their data all at the same
>>>>>> time,
>>>>>> > you would have a single file with (I'm guessing) 6 frequency
>>>>>> measurements
>>>>>> > and 6 amplitude measurements  for the 6 receivers per sample
>>>>>> instance (with
>>>>>> > a timestamp that goes with it).
>>>>>> > This would be contained all within 1 file for the given (WWV)
>>>>>> frequency
>>>>>> > being measured and submitted daily.
>>>>>> If 6 copies of fldigi (or any program) are writing to the same file,
>>>>>> you're going to have data corruption.  There are four reasonable ways
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> proceed:
>>>>>> - Add some field to the name of the file that fldigi's writing to, so
>>>>>>   you're writing to 6 files per day, one from each process, then
>>>>>> somehow
>>>>>>   tell fldigi what value of that field to use.  The best way to do
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>   probably involves an environment variable that fldigi reads.  Then
>>>>>>   relax or work around the one-upload-per-day-per-node restriction
>>>>>>   somehow.
>>>>>> - Have 6 different nodes, and somehow tell fldigi which node it is.
>>>>>> The
>>>>>>   best way to do that probably involves an environment variable that
>>>>>>   fldigi reads.  Since all nodes have exactly the same metadata
>>>>>>   (right?), I don't think you'd even have to modify John's metadata
>>>>>>   directory scheme.  This is probably saner than the previous option.
>>>>>> - Instead of having fldigi write to a file directly, have it send its
>>>>>>   measurements to a daemon via a UNIX socket (or a TCP socket bound to
>>>>>>  The daemon then takes care of reading the metadata,
>>>>>>   creating the .csv files, and rotating them each UTC day.  This
>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>   involve any environment variables (so long as only one node is used
>>>>>>   and the metadata is all the same), but would effectively undo all
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>   effort John went through to get his changes upstreamed.  Still, I
>>>>>>   think this is the sanest option so far.  Actually, I proposed
>>>>>>   something like this very early in the project, when David was
>>>>>> setting
>>>>>>   up the first prototype of the system, and I was shot down because it
>>>>>>   seemed too complicated.  If you want to go this route, I can write
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>   code - it'll take a fraction of a Saturday or Sunday to go from zero
>>>>>>   to having a finished pair of packages (one for the modifications to
>>>>>>   fldigi, another for the daemon).
>>>>>> - Run fldigi as 6 different users, all belonging to the same set of
>>>>>>   groups, each with their own unique home directory.  Then they can
>>>>>>   share or not share metadata and/or node IDs as desired.  This is the
>>>>>>   least sane option, but (when using different nodes) requires no
>>>>>>   changes to existing and planned code.
>>>>>> I wrote the above list under the assumption that it is okay for the
>>>>>> antenna that generated each record not to be associated with that
>>>>>> record.  I did that intentionally for the sake of argument only.
>>>>>> Actually, I don't think that's okay at all, and there needs to be a
>>>>>> different node for each antenna (because the metadata must be
>>>>>> different).  Probably Phil and/or Nathaniel should jump in and tell us
>>>>>> what they want/need.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> TangerineSDR mailing list
>>>>>> TangerineSDR at lists.tapr.org
>>>>>> http://lists.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/tangerinesdr_lists.tapr.org
>>>>> --
>>>>> TangerineSDR mailing list
>>>>> TangerineSDR at lists.tapr.org
>>>>> http://lists.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/tangerinesdr_lists.tapr.org
>>>> --
>>>> TangerineSDR mailing list
>>>> TangerineSDR at lists.tapr.org
>>>> http://lists.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/tangerinesdr_lists.tapr.org
>>> --
>>> ----
>>> Phil Erickson
>>> phil.erickson at gmail.com
>>> --
>>> TangerineSDR mailing list
>>> TangerineSDR at lists.tapr.org
>>> http://lists.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/tangerinesdr_lists.tapr.org
> --
> ----
> Phil Erickson
> phil.erickson at gmail.com

Phil Erickson
phil.erickson at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.tapr.org/pipermail/tangerinesdr_lists.tapr.org/attachments/20200507/4ab45090/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the TangerineSDR mailing list