Date   

Re: Kiwi Forum status?

Jim Lill
 

Not likely as the apache part of things still runs

On 12/19/21 11:22 AM, Bruce KX4AZ wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 05:53 AM, Glenn Elmore wrote:
Does anyone on this group have any knowledge of the status of the KiwiSDR forum?  It has been read-only for quite some time.
Is there any insight as to the reason or if/when it might return? 
With all of the KiwiSDRs involved with wsprdraemon and the database(s) this is becoming a matter of concern to me.  
Glenn n6gn
Wondering if it is related to the Apache server log4shell vulnerability that has been causing so much alarm recently.


Re: Kiwi Forum status?

Bruce KX4AZ
 

On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 05:53 AM, Glenn Elmore wrote:
Does anyone on this group have any knowledge of the status of the KiwiSDR forum?  It has been read-only for quite some time.
Is there any insight as to the reason or if/when it might return? 
With all of the KiwiSDRs involved with wsprdraemon and the database(s) this is becoming a matter of concern to me.  
Glenn n6gn
Wondering if it is related to the Apache server log4shell vulnerability that has been causing so much alarm recently.


Re: Kiwi Forum status?

Rob Robinett
 

I found some rather persistent bots in Maui, KPh and KFS but was able to suppress them by adding their public IP address/16 to the Kiw's block nets table.

On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 6:39 PM WA2TP <myis300@...> wrote:
I have had a specific kiwi targeted and channels kicked repeatedly. To the point where I moved the antenna connected to the targeted kiwi, to a new kiwi and left that kiwi as a target, which continued to experience the same attacks. 

On Dec 18, 2021, at 10:38 PM, Phil Karn <karn@...> wrote:

I would also like to know the answer to this question. I'm seeing traffic to one of my KiwiSDRs that may or may not be an attack trying to exploit a bug, and I would really like to know if anyone else is seeing the same thing.
Phil



--
Rob Robinett
AI6VN
mobile: +1 650 218 8896


Re: Kiwi Forum status?

WA2TP - Tom
 

I have had a specific kiwi targeted and channels kicked repeatedly. To the point where I moved the antenna connected to the targeted kiwi, to a new kiwi and left that kiwi as a target, which continued to experience the same attacks. 

On Dec 18, 2021, at 10:38 PM, Phil Karn <karn@...> wrote:

I would also like to know the answer to this question. I'm seeing traffic to one of my KiwiSDRs that may or may not be an attack trying to exploit a bug, and I would really like to know if anyone else is seeing the same thing.
Phil


Re: Kiwi Forum status?

Phil Karn
 

I would also like to know the answer to this question. I'm seeing traffic to one of my KiwiSDRs that may or may not be an attack trying to exploit a bug, and I would really like to know if anyone else is seeing the same thing.
Phil


Kiwi Forum status?

Glenn Elmore
 

Does anyone on this group have any knowledge of the status of the KiwiSDR forum?  It has been read-only for quite some time.
Is there any insight as to the reason or if/when it might return? 
With all of the KiwiSDRs involved with wsprdraemon and the database(s) this is becoming a matter of concern to me.  
Glenn n6gn


Re: WD will not install on the new Raspberry Pi 'bullseye' OS release

Jim Lill
 


Many (most?) people who run WD on SBC do it headless I think.  

On 12/15/21 1:03 PM, Rolf Ekstrand wrote:
Greetings y'all

Just to get a peek on Bullseye I installed it on my raspi 400.  There are a number of other of programs than WSJT-X  tried that simply will not install direct yet from a .deb file as they need additional files and/or functions that obviously were removed from Bullseye.  The worst problem I have found (at least on my 400) is the video flicker when using Chrome and clicking on saved web links. It is very annoying.  As far as I goes Buster is still the way to go for now.

73 Rolf K9DZT
 
 


Re: WD will not install on the new Raspberry Pi 'bullseye' OS release

Rolf Ekstrand
 

Greetings y'all

Just to get a peek on Bullseye I installed it on my raspi 400.  There are a number of other of programs than WSJT-X  tried that simply will not install direct yet from a .deb file as they need additional files and/or functions that obviously were removed from Bullseye.  The worst problem I have found (at least on my 400) is the video flicker when using Chrome and clicking on saved web links. It is very annoying.  As far as I goes Buster is still the way to go for now.

73 Rolf K9DZT
 
 


Re: Noise

Glenn Elmore
 

Probably still several layers to peel away here.  A quick look brings more questions.

As mentioned, terminated coax noise floor doesn't tell us much.

But Dec 12 v 13 heat map is very suspicious. 

        Noise actually drops on 60 & 630 bands from Dec 12 to Dec 13.  !!  uhhh.. Really?  It would seem to imply two mechanisms with some cancellation on the 13th. Yccch.

Sharp steps from the 13th on at least 12-20 are a Bad Thing©. Propagated noise doesn't do this. More fodder for the local ingress theory. Compare your shape over a day with a known quiet site/system, perhaps KPH.

Is the T1-1 the very closest thing to the Kiwi?  It should be or you risk providing a return path through a chassis/common of the filters to something. You don't want this, you want to float that end of the Kiwi to CM currents.

Amplifiers in the right place can provide relative suppression of ingress, in the wrong place they don't help. Until you have peeled away the, apparently, multiple mechanisms it is hard to even say where to put one the closer to what you consider to be the antenna is generally better.

I don't know what ou mean by 'only used as a probe'. Is that just saying this is not a main stream rx for you?  I didn't get the relevance nor the inclusion of selected bands (at least two of which are suspicious as described above).

More peeling required.

On 12/14/21 5:19 PM, John via groups.io wrote:
Glenn, Clint,
At https://wspr.live/gui/d/ereVvgn7z/station-noise-stats?orgId=1&refresh=1m&var-site=TI4JWC&var-receiver=All&var-band=All&var-type=rms_level
you will find my noise raspberryIKWI recordings. Dec-11 is 50-ohm termination at the KIWI. Dec-12 levels with a 50-Ohm termination at the cable at the base of the antenna.
Dec-13 and on are when running normally. The antenna is only used as a probe at 60M, 180, 630.
The noise levels Radio-only .vs. radio-feed-line range from a low of 2 db for 17, 20 M  to 23 db for 80 M
From the antenna to KIWI, in the shack I have in series T1-T transformer, AM filter, FM-filter.
I have recommended 14 db amplifier on the bench but I need a "limited Attenuation High pass filter"
Unfortunately, with only one good eye, my construction days are passed. 

John


Re: Noise

John
 

Glenn, Clint,
At https://wspr.live/gui/d/ereVvgn7z/station-noise-stats?orgId=1&refresh=1m&var-site=TI4JWC&var-receiver=All&var-band=All&var-type=rms_level
you will find my noise raspberryIKWI recordings. Dec-11 is 50-ohm termination at the KIWI. Dec-12 levels with a 50-Ohm termination at the cable at the base of the antenna.
Dec-13 and on are when running normally. The antenna is only used as a probe at 60M, 180, 630.
The noise levels Radio-only .vs. radio-feed-line range from a low of 2 db for 17, 20 M  to 23 db for 80 M
From the antenna to KIWI, in the shack I have in series T1-T transformer, AM filter, FM-filter.
I have recommended 14 db amplifier on the bench but I need a "limited Attenuation High pass filter"
Unfortunately, with only one good eye, my construction days are passed. 

John


Re: Noise

Glenn Elmore
 

Not what you really want to know. A monopole uses the 'ground system' as an image plane. Even with a good radial system and the best baluns it is probably not possible to suitably distinguish CM from differential+CM noise.

A termination only tells you that current on the coax with no 'sink' at the antenna is low enough. It usuallly is but if you can't terminate and see the Kiwi noise floor then you do have a problem to fix somewhere, possibly CM through the groundplane of the kiwi in/out the LAN/SMA or PS/SMA. Anything that keeps you from a 50-ohm Kiwi noise floor needs to to be fixed first so go ahead and try it just don't think that you are nearly done...


On 12/9/21 9:44 AM, John via groups.io wrote:
Glenn,
The antenna is a Hy-Gain AV-680, 9-BAND HF VERT ANT, 80/40/30/20/17/15/12/10/6M. I am guessing that the"shorting method" does not apply. 
Can I learn anything by disconnecting at the antenna feed point and applying a short or 50-ohn load?

John


Re: Noise

John
 

Glenn,
The antenna is a Hy-Gain AV-680, 9-BAND HF VERT ANT, 80/40/30/20/17/15/12/10/6M. I am guessing that the"shorting method" does not apply. 
Can I learn anything by disconnecting at the antenna feed point and applying a short or 50-ohn load?

John


Re: incorrect values of snr difference on wspr.live grafana page ? Possible bug-report

ON5KQ
 

Hi Arne,
excellent - I realized, that you are already working on implement a map with real SNR difference numbers!

However we must be careful, when calculating!
A special case, which makes problems:
- What if first receiver don't hear a station at all and the reference receiver's mean receive SNR of that station is -20dbm.
In that case there should be no difference calculated, because the 'difference' then is 100%....hi

However if we follow the calculation as it is implemented now, we get a lot of false reports - let's take the example of above
receiver 1 don't hear the station at all.....---> Does it mean this field is 0  (zero?!)
Then reference receiver hears this station with -20dbm  --->   0dbm minus (-20dBm) = +20dBm

So:  An orange point is shown and receiver 1 as if the receiver 1 would hear the station 20db better - instead it don't hear it at all !

We can indeed see lots of high numbers - when we compare totally different  receive locations, where the chance is high, that one station don't hear the same stations as the reference receiver... could you check it please ?!

But this map will be great, once you have found the time for some tuning.... (as with the case mentioned above)

Many thanks for the great work !

Ulli, ON5KQ


Re: Probability theory - spot yield for hopping versus continuous reception?

WA2TP - Tom
 

It’s fairly simple. I am by no means any kind of debian expert. 

In fact, my very first experience with debian was a year and a half ago. 

Since then I have built well over a dozen kiwi/BBAI systems for fellow hams. 

The most difficult part was a reliable thermal solution which I was able design.

Feel free to reach out if I can be of any  assistance. 

On Dec 5, 2021, at 4:14 PM, Bruce KX4AZ <bruce@...> wrote:

Setting up a BBAI would definitely be the best solution for me if I don't eventually add a second Kiwi, but I have the impression that would require a fair amount of effort software-wise that exceeds my current skill set -  i.e. I had just enough to get wsprdaemon running on a Pi4.  Perhaps I should do is make it my summer 2022 project, when I return to the KX4AZ/T site where the KiwiSDR is running.

Generally speaking, my goal has been to maximize the unique station counts in a 24 hour period, without tying up the KiwiSDR too much.  When I occasionally run a supplementary hopper receiver, I adjust the bands based on the time of day, to focus on what makes the most sense, i.e. at night I don't bother with 15/12/10 meters, but 630/160m are worth including.  

This thread actually belongs in the wsprbeacon forum, it occurs to me.  My interest/curiosity is in devising a mathematical algorithm to predict how many unique stations might be missed on a specific band, if a receiver is only listening for x% of the time over the course of a 24 hour period.  Essentially it becomes a cumulative probability of spotting, taking into account the the proportion of the day that the beacons are transmitting, combined with the probability that the receiver will "see" a signal of adequate S/N ratio.  My sense is that a 20% duty cycle on a single band would yield much more than 20% of the total in comparison to a continuous (100%) receiving mode.  The question is what that % value might be.  And actually, this value could be extracted from the WSPR data base if one could interrogate it in the correct way, and see how many unique spots remain if 80% of them were randomly removed from entire set of raw spots in a day.  So I should be able to answer my original question once I improve my WSPR database skills. 


Re: Probability theory - spot yield for hopping versus continuous reception?

Bruce KX4AZ
 

Setting up a BBAI would definitely be the best solution for me if I don't eventually add a second Kiwi, but I have the impression that would require a fair amount of effort software-wise that exceeds my current skill set -  i.e. I had just enough to get wsprdaemon running on a Pi4.  Perhaps I should do is make it my summer 2022 project, when I return to the KX4AZ/T site where the KiwiSDR is running.

Generally speaking, my goal has been to maximize the unique station counts in a 24 hour period, without tying up the KiwiSDR too much.  When I occasionally run a supplementary hopper receiver, I adjust the bands based on the time of day, to focus on what makes the most sense, i.e. at night I don't bother with 15/12/10 meters, but 630/160m are worth including.  

This thread actually belongs in the wsprbeacon forum, it occurs to me.  My interest/curiosity is in devising a mathematical algorithm to predict how many unique stations might be missed on a specific band, if a receiver is only listening for x% of the time over the course of a 24 hour period.  Essentially it becomes a cumulative probability of spotting, taking into account the the proportion of the day that the beacons are transmitting, combined with the probability that the receiver will "see" a signal of adequate S/N ratio.  My sense is that a 20% duty cycle on a single band would yield much more than 20% of the total in comparison to a continuous (100%) receiving mode.  The question is what that % value might be.  And actually, this value could be extracted from the WSPR data base if one could interrogate it in the correct way, and see how many unique spots remain if 80% of them were randomly removed from entire set of raw spots in a day.  So I should be able to answer my original question once I improve my WSPR database skills. 


Re: Probability theory - spot yield for hopping versus continuous reception?

WA2TP - Tom
 

Interestingly I have been using the 5 kiwi/BBAI setup for just over a year and a half and I generally stand in the top 5 for uniques and top 10 for overall.

Cumulative last month November total spot count was recorded as #3 in the world per KB9AMG’s site.

And daily top 5 in the world on the wspr challenge.
 73’
WA2TP
Tom

On Dec 5, 2021, at 1:40 PM, Glenn Elmore <n6gn@...> wrote:




I can't answer for 'anyone' but the short answer for myself is "no, I haven't". But I think it depends what you are after. To maximize the raw spot count with limited receiver count probably following the herd as they travel will get you more total spots. If the goal is unique spots over a day, I think following the MUF may pay off better.

By watching unique spots vs band and time of day, I try to center the 6 receivers I use on WSPR at N6GN/K2, 3/4ths of a KiwiSDR,  on where the MUF /absorption has center of mass. at a particular time of day and year.  I change the schedule in wsprdaemon several times/day.

I'm more interested in the propagation than the counts but doing this does give more data so that watching it all in conjunction with the MUF map can give insight.


On 12/5/21 11:28 AM, Bruce KX4AZ wrote:
I wonder if anyone has ever done any rough calculations using the WSPR database to do some predictive calculations around the spot numbers that could be achieved in a continuous decoding (i.e. with a KiwiSDR) versus hopping (i.e. a WSJT-x software with a single frequency receiver).

My current  'KX4AZ/T' KiwiSDR site is working reasonably well with WSPR decoding, but I don't like to tie up all 8 of the Kiwi channels with the wsprdaemon.  Recently I have had it decoding on just 4 channels (80/40/30/20).  Now and then I'll turn on a separate Airspy HF+ Discovery  "hopper" receiver for the less active WSPR frequencies...but I've always wondered about how many spots I am missing with the hopper receiver.  Seems like the WSPR database would be an excellent tool to use for constructing some predictive calculations, but I can't quite wrap my mind around the mathematics & probability calculations it would require.  And for all I know this has already been done long ago.


Re: Probability theory - spot yield for hopping versus continuous reception?

Rob Robinett
 

I set all my Kiwis to 8 channel mode and configure WD to use 6 or 7 of the channels, leaving one waterfall rx channel free for my listening.

For publically shared sites, with two Kiwis fed by one antenna I can spot on all 14 WSPR bands and I have 4 waterfall channels for listeners.

On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 10:40 AM Glenn Elmore <n6gn@...> wrote:


I can't answer for 'anyone' but the short answer for myself is "no, I haven't". But I think it depends what you are after. To maximize the raw spot count with limited receiver count probably following the herd as they travel will get you more total spots. If the goal is unique spots over a day, I think following the MUF may pay off better.

By watching unique spots vs band and time of day, I try to center the 6 receivers I use on WSPR at N6GN/K2, 3/4ths of a KiwiSDR,  on where the MUF /absorption has center of mass. at a particular time of day and year.  I change the schedule in wsprdaemon several times/day.

I'm more interested in the propagation than the counts but doing this does give more data so that watching it all in conjunction with the MUF map can give insight.


On 12/5/21 11:28 AM, Bruce KX4AZ wrote:
I wonder if anyone has ever done any rough calculations using the WSPR database to do some predictive calculations around the spot numbers that could be achieved in a continuous decoding (i.e. with a KiwiSDR) versus hopping (i.e. a WSJT-x software with a single frequency receiver).

My current  'KX4AZ/T' KiwiSDR site is working reasonably well with WSPR decoding, but I don't like to tie up all 8 of the Kiwi channels with the wsprdaemon.  Recently I have had it decoding on just 4 channels (80/40/30/20).  Now and then I'll turn on a separate Airspy HF+ Discovery  "hopper" receiver for the less active WSPR frequencies...but I've always wondered about how many spots I am missing with the hopper receiver.  Seems like the WSPR database would be an excellent tool to use for constructing some predictive calculations, but I can't quite wrap my mind around the mathematics & probability calculations it would require.  And for all I know this has already been done long ago.



--
Rob Robinett
AI6VN
mobile: +1 650 218 8896


Re: Probability theory - spot yield for hopping versus continuous reception?

Glenn Elmore
 


I can't answer for 'anyone' but the short answer for myself is "no, I haven't". But I think it depends what you are after. To maximize the raw spot count with limited receiver count probably following the herd as they travel will get you more total spots. If the goal is unique spots over a day, I think following the MUF may pay off better.

By watching unique spots vs band and time of day, I try to center the 6 receivers I use on WSPR at N6GN/K2, 3/4ths of a KiwiSDR,  on where the MUF /absorption has center of mass. at a particular time of day and year.  I change the schedule in wsprdaemon several times/day.

I'm more interested in the propagation than the counts but doing this does give more data so that watching it all in conjunction with the MUF map can give insight.


On 12/5/21 11:28 AM, Bruce KX4AZ wrote:
I wonder if anyone has ever done any rough calculations using the WSPR database to do some predictive calculations around the spot numbers that could be achieved in a continuous decoding (i.e. with a KiwiSDR) versus hopping (i.e. a WSJT-x software with a single frequency receiver).

My current  'KX4AZ/T' KiwiSDR site is working reasonably well with WSPR decoding, but I don't like to tie up all 8 of the Kiwi channels with the wsprdaemon.  Recently I have had it decoding on just 4 channels (80/40/30/20).  Now and then I'll turn on a separate Airspy HF+ Discovery  "hopper" receiver for the less active WSPR frequencies...but I've always wondered about how many spots I am missing with the hopper receiver.  Seems like the WSPR database would be an excellent tool to use for constructing some predictive calculations, but I can't quite wrap my mind around the mathematics & probability calculations it would require.  And for all I know this has already been done long ago.


Re: Probability theory - spot yield for hopping versus continuous reception?

Jim Lill
 

A couple thoughts....  

- look at raw data from wsprnet.org or equiv. site and see what your reception is over the course of a day

- once understanding that distribution, you might be able to reduce the number of kiwi channels you use by taking advantage of the scheduling function


On 12/5/21 1:28 PM, Bruce KX4AZ wrote:
I wonder if anyone has ever done any rough calculations using the WSPR database to do some predictive calculations around the spot numbers that could be achieved in a continuous decoding (i.e. with a KiwiSDR) versus hopping (i.e. a WSJT-x software with a single frequency receiver).

My current  'KX4AZ/T' KiwiSDR site is working reasonably well with WSPR decoding, but I don't like to tie up all 8 of the Kiwi channels with the wsprdaemon.  Recently I have had it decoding on just 4 channels (80/40/30/20).  Now and then I'll turn on a separate Airspy HF+ Discovery  "hopper" receiver for the less active WSPR frequencies...but I've always wondered about how many spots I am missing with the hopper receiver.  Seems like the WSPR database would be an excellent tool to use for constructing some predictive calculations, but I can't quite wrap my mind around the mathematics & probability calculations it would require.  And for all I know this has already been done long ago.


Re: Probability theory - spot yield for hopping versus continuous reception?

WA2TP - Tom
 

Have you considered upgrading the beaglebone on the kiwi to a BBAI? 
You would then be able to decode 14rx channels simultaneously. Albeit you do loose the full waterfall. 

I currently have 54rx channels by doing this with 5 kiwi/BBAI and using wsprdaemon to decode.

On Dec 5, 2021, at 1:28 PM, Bruce KX4AZ <bruce@...> wrote:

I wonder if anyone has ever done any rough calculations using the WSPR database to do some predictive calculations around the spot numbers that could be achieved in a continuous decoding (i.e. with a KiwiSDR) versus hopping (i.e. a WSJT-x software with a single frequency receiver).

My current  'KX4AZ/T' KiwiSDR site is working reasonably well with WSPR decoding, but I don't like to tie up all 8 of the Kiwi channels with the wsprdaemon.  Recently I have had it decoding on just 4 channels (80/40/30/20).  Now and then I'll turn on a separate Airspy HF+ Discovery  "hopper" receiver for the less active WSPR frequencies...but I've always wondered about how many spots I am missing with the hopper receiver.  Seems like the WSPR database would be an excellent tool to use for constructing some predictive calculations, but I can't quite wrap my mind around the mathematics & probability calculations it would require.  And for all I know this has already been done long ago.

661 - 680 of 1270