Empathy List Archives

BI

Burt I. Weiner

Tue, Jun 21, 2016 3:50 PM

Nick,

Welcome to the world of FMT-Nuttery where we strive to make absurdly
accurate off-air frequency measurements.

I regularly participate in the FMT's. The "measuring receiver" I use
is a HP-3586B "Selective Level Meter". While the 3586 series of
receivers will only give you 0.1 Hz resolution, there are simple
methods to use them to get down to 1 mHz (milliHertz) resolution, or
better. You'll quickly find out that you're limited by propagation
between the FMT transmitter and your receive location.

Rather than go into a long dissertation here on how to do this,
here's a link to the write-up for my preferred FMT Methodology -
K6OQK FMT Methodology.

See: http://www.k5cm.com/k6oqk%20fmt%20new.htm

You're probably already familiar with Connie, K5CM's website for all
things FMT, but in case you're not, take a look at: www.k5cm.com

I'll be glad to answer any questions you have. You can either ask
here or send me a direct e-mail at: biwa@att.net.

Burt, K6OQK

From: Nick Sayer nsayer@kfu.com

I'm considering taking a shot at the next ARRL frequency measurement contest.

The assumption going in is that the signal is CW, with at least a
half minute or so of just solid "on" at one point or another and that
reception is reasonably good.

I've got a good TIA and excellent references, but that's the easy
part, it seems to me. It seems to me that what I really need to do is
make a synthesized heterodyne receiver that can present an accurately
tuned RF band pass - say, 10 kHz wide with the synthesizer set for
5 kHz steps - to the TIA, with some manually tunable high-pass and
low-pass filtering to isolate the signal of interest. If the mixer
got its LO from a synthesizer with a GPSDO reference, it seems to me
that you could then measure the frequency of the signal of interest
(now an audio frequency, so you can listen to it too) with the TIA
(also getting the GPSDO reference) and then do simple math to arrive
at the actual RF frequency.

Anybody have any thoughts?

Burt I. Weiner Associates
Broadcast Technical Services
Glendale, California U.S.A.
biwa@att.net
www.biwa.cc
K6OQK

Nick, Welcome to the world of FMT-Nuttery where we strive to make absurdly accurate off-air frequency measurements. I regularly participate in the FMT's. The "measuring receiver" I use is a HP-3586B "Selective Level Meter". While the 3586 series of receivers will only give you 0.1 Hz resolution, there are simple methods to use them to get down to 1 mHz (milliHertz) resolution, or better. You'll quickly find out that you're limited by propagation between the FMT transmitter and your receive location. Rather than go into a long dissertation here on how to do this, here's a link to the write-up for my preferred FMT Methodology - K6OQK FMT Methodology. See: http://www.k5cm.com/k6oqk%20fmt%20new.htm You're probably already familiar with Connie, K5CM's website for all things FMT, but in case you're not, take a look at: www.k5cm.com I'll be glad to answer any questions you have. You can either ask here or send me a direct e-mail at: biwa@att.net. Burt, K6OQK From: Nick Sayer <nsayer@kfu.com> I'm considering taking a shot at the next ARRL frequency measurement contest. The assumption going in is that the signal is CW, with at least a half minute or so of just solid "on" at one point or another and that reception is reasonably good. I've got a good TIA and excellent references, but that's the easy part, it seems to me. It seems to me that what I really need to do is make a synthesized heterodyne receiver that can present an accurately tuned RF band pass - say, 10 kHz wide with the synthesizer set for 5 kHz steps - to the TIA, with some manually tunable high-pass and low-pass filtering to isolate the signal of interest. If the mixer got its LO from a synthesizer with a GPSDO reference, it seems to me that you could then measure the frequency of the signal of interest (now an audio frequency, so you can listen to it too) with the TIA (also getting the GPSDO reference) and then do simple math to arrive at the actual RF frequency. Anybody have any thoughts? Burt I. Weiner Associates Broadcast Technical Services Glendale, California U.S.A. biwa@att.net www.biwa.cc K6OQK

BC

Brooke Clarke

Tue, Jun 21, 2016 6:28 PM

Hi:

During W.W.II there were secret methods of "fingerprinting" radio transmitters and separately the operators.
I suspect the transmitter fingerprinting involved things like frequency accuracy, stability, CW rise and decay time,
&Etc. For the operator some from of statistics on the timings associated with sending Morse Code. But. . . I haven't
seen any papers describing this. Can anyone point me to a paper on this?

--
Have Fun,

Brooke Clarke, N6GCE
http://www.PRC68.com
http://www.end2partygovernment.com/2012Issues.html
The lesser of evils is still evil.

-------- Original Message --------

Nick,

Welcome to the world of FMT-Nuttery where we strive to make absurdly accurate off-air frequency measurements.

I regularly participate in the FMT's. The "measuring receiver" I use is a HP-3586B "Selective Level Meter". While
the 3586 series of receivers will only give you 0.1 Hz resolution, there are simple methods to use them to get down to
1 mHz (milliHertz) resolution, or better. You'll quickly find out that you're limited by propagation between the FMT
transmitter and your receive location.

Rather than go into a long dissertation here on how to do this, here's a link to the write-up for my preferred FMT
Methodology - K6OQK FMT Methodology.

See: http://www.k5cm.com/k6oqk%20fmt%20new.htm

You're probably already familiar with Connie, K5CM's website for all things FMT, but in case you're not, take a look
at: www.k5cm.com

I'll be glad to answer any questions you have. You can either ask here or send me a direct e-mail at: biwa@att.net.

Burt, K6OQK

From: Nick Sayer nsayer@kfu.com

I'm considering taking a shot at the next ARRL frequency measurement contest.

The assumption going in is that the signal is CW, with at least a half minute or so of just solid "on" at one point or
another and that reception is reasonably good.

I've got a good TIA and excellent references, but that's the easy part, it seems to me. It seems to me that what I
really need to do is make a synthesized heterodyne receiver that can present an accurately tuned RF band pass - say,
10 kHz wide with the synthesizer set for
5 kHz steps - to the TIA, with some manually tunable high-pass and low-pass filtering to isolate the signal of
interest. If the mixer got its LO from a synthesizer with a GPSDO reference, it seems to me that you could then
measure the frequency of the signal of interest (now an audio frequency, so you can listen to it too) with the TIA
(also getting the GPSDO reference) and then do simple math to arrive at the actual RF frequency.

Anybody have any thoughts?

Burt I. Weiner Associates
Broadcast Technical Services
Glendale, California U.S.A.
biwa@att.net
www.biwa.cc
K6OQK

time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Hi: During W.W.II there were secret methods of "fingerprinting" radio transmitters and separately the operators. I suspect the transmitter fingerprinting involved things like frequency accuracy, stability, CW rise and decay time, &Etc. For the operator some from of statistics on the timings associated with sending Morse Code. But. . . I haven't seen any papers describing this. Can anyone point me to a paper on this? -- Have Fun, Brooke Clarke, N6GCE http://www.PRC68.com http://www.end2partygovernment.com/2012Issues.html The lesser of evils is still evil. -------- Original Message -------- > Nick, > > Welcome to the world of FMT-Nuttery where we strive to make absurdly accurate off-air frequency measurements. > > I regularly participate in the FMT's. The "measuring receiver" I use is a HP-3586B "Selective Level Meter". While > the 3586 series of receivers will only give you 0.1 Hz resolution, there are simple methods to use them to get down to > 1 mHz (milliHertz) resolution, or better. You'll quickly find out that you're limited by propagation between the FMT > transmitter and your receive location. > > Rather than go into a long dissertation here on how to do this, here's a link to the write-up for my preferred FMT > Methodology - K6OQK FMT Methodology. > > See: http://www.k5cm.com/k6oqk%20fmt%20new.htm > > You're probably already familiar with Connie, K5CM's website for all things FMT, but in case you're not, take a look > at: www.k5cm.com > > I'll be glad to answer any questions you have. You can either ask here or send me a direct e-mail at: biwa@att.net. > > Burt, K6OQK > > > From: Nick Sayer <nsayer@kfu.com> > > I'm considering taking a shot at the next ARRL frequency measurement contest. > > The assumption going in is that the signal is CW, with at least a half minute or so of just solid "on" at one point or > another and that reception is reasonably good. > > I've got a good TIA and excellent references, but that's the easy part, it seems to me. It seems to me that what I > really need to do is make a synthesized heterodyne receiver that can present an accurately tuned RF band pass - say, > 10 kHz wide with the synthesizer set for > 5 kHz steps - to the TIA, with some manually tunable high-pass and low-pass filtering to isolate the signal of > interest. If the mixer got its LO from a synthesizer with a GPSDO reference, it seems to me that you could then > measure the frequency of the signal of interest (now an audio frequency, so you can listen to it too) with the TIA > (also getting the GPSDO reference) and then do simple math to arrive at the actual RF frequency. > > Anybody have any thoughts? > > Burt I. Weiner Associates > Broadcast Technical Services > Glendale, California U.S.A. > biwa@att.net > www.biwa.cc > K6OQK > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. >

J

jimlux

Tue, Jun 21, 2016 9:02 PM

On 6/21/16 11:28 AM, Brooke Clarke wrote:

Hi:

During W.W.II there were secret methods of "fingerprinting" radio
transmitters and separately the operators.
I suspect the transmitter fingerprinting involved things like frequency
accuracy, stability, CW rise and decay time, &Etc. For the operator some
from of statistics on the timings associated with sending Morse Code.
But. . . I haven't seen any papers describing this. Can anyone point
me to a paper on this?

For "human controlled" stuff, e.g. recognizing someone's "fist", there's
a huge literature out there on biometric identification looking at
things like keyboard and mouse click timing - the timing requirements
are pretty slack, and hardly time-nuts level, unless you're looking to
do it with mechanical devices constructed from spare twigs and strands
of kelp.

There have been a variety of schemes for recognizing individual radios
by looking at the frequency vs time as they start up. Likewise, it's
pretty easy to distinguish radar magnetrons from each other. Not a lot
of papers about this, but you'll see it in advertising literature, or
occasionally in conference pubs (although I can't think of any off
hand). There was someone selling a repeater access control system that
was based on the transmitter fingerprint.

But the real reason why you don't see any publications is that this
stuff is pretty classic signals intelligence (SIGINT or MASINT) and it
is still being used, and is all classified. You're not relying on Betty
the receiver operator to recognize the characteristic chirp as the
agent's radio is keyed, it's all done by computer now, but the basic
idea is the same. And as with most of this stuff, the basics are well
known, but the practical details are not, or, at least, are the
proprietary secret sauce in any practical system. (In a significant
understatement, Dixon, in "Spread Spectrum Systems" makes some comment
about how synch acquisition is the difficult part and won't be described
in the book)

You might look at the unclassified proceedings of conferences like
MILCOM and find something. Googling with MASINT might also help.

On 6/21/16 11:28 AM, Brooke Clarke wrote: > Hi: > > During W.W.II there were secret methods of "fingerprinting" radio > transmitters and separately the operators. > I suspect the transmitter fingerprinting involved things like frequency > accuracy, stability, CW rise and decay time, &Etc. For the operator some > from of statistics on the timings associated with sending Morse Code. > But. . . I haven't seen any papers describing this. Can anyone point > me to a paper on this? > For "human controlled" stuff, e.g. recognizing someone's "fist", there's a huge literature out there on biometric identification looking at things like keyboard and mouse click timing - the timing requirements are pretty slack, and hardly time-nuts level, unless you're looking to do it with mechanical devices constructed from spare twigs and strands of kelp. There have been a variety of schemes for recognizing individual radios by looking at the frequency vs time as they start up. Likewise, it's pretty easy to distinguish radar magnetrons from each other. Not a lot of papers about this, but you'll see it in advertising literature, or occasionally in conference pubs (although I can't think of any off hand). There was someone selling a repeater access control system that was based on the transmitter fingerprint. But the real reason why you don't see any publications is that this stuff is pretty classic signals intelligence (SIGINT or MASINT) and it is still being used, and is all classified. You're not relying on Betty the receiver operator to recognize the characteristic chirp as the agent's radio is keyed, it's all done by computer now, but the basic idea is the same. And as with most of this stuff, the basics are well known, but the practical details are not, or, at least, are the proprietary secret sauce in any practical system. (In a significant understatement, Dixon, in "Spread Spectrum Systems" makes some comment about how synch acquisition is the difficult part and won't be described in the book) You might look at the unclassified proceedings of conferences like MILCOM and find something. Googling with MASINT might also help.

AM

Alan Melia

Tue, Jun 21, 2016 11:02 PM

TX "fingerprinting" in WWII
You seem to be forgetting that there were very few of the sophisticated
digital timing systems were available 75 years ago. Traffic analysis was
started early in 1938 or even before. By 1939 we knew all the nets used in
Europe and had "Y" ( a corruption of WI, Wireless Intercept )operators
monitoring the nets. Many of these were amateurs and they were allocated to
specific nets and followed them around as they moved. They became very
familiar with the "accents" of operators on their nets, and particularly
before 1939 security procedures were very lax and "chatting"
common-place.....but it was all aural.

I suspect serious transmitter parameter logging was not done before the cold
war when spectrum analysers, or at least pan-adapters became more readily
available. To keep a little OnTopic .....you would have difficulty doing
this with a BC-221.!! :-)) A crystal clock of this period was at least one
fully utilised 6foot 19inch rack (there is one at Grenwich.)
Alan
G3NYK

Alan
G3NYK

----- Original Message -----
From: "jimlux" jimlux@earthlink.net
To: time-nuts@febo.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Measuring receiver...

On 6/21/16 11:28 AM, Brooke Clarke wrote:

Hi:

During W.W.II there were secret methods of "fingerprinting" radio
transmitters and separately the operators.
I suspect the transmitter fingerprinting involved things like frequency
accuracy, stability, CW rise and decay time, &Etc. For the operator some
from of statistics on the timings associated with sending Morse Code.
But. . . I haven't seen any papers describing this. Can anyone point
me to a paper on this?

For "human controlled" stuff, e.g. recognizing someone's "fist", there's a
huge literature out there on biometric identification looking at things
like keyboard and mouse click timing - the timing requirements are pretty
slack, and hardly time-nuts level, unless you're looking to do it with
mechanical devices constructed from spare twigs and strands of kelp.

There have been a variety of schemes for recognizing individual radios by
looking at the frequency vs time as they start up. Likewise, it's pretty
easy to distinguish radar magnetrons from each other. Not a lot of papers
about this, but you'll see it in advertising literature, or occasionally
in conference pubs (although I can't think of any off hand). There was
someone selling a repeater access control system that was based on the
transmitter fingerprint.

But the real reason why you don't see any publications is that this stuff
is pretty classic signals intelligence (SIGINT or MASINT) and it is still
being used, and is all classified. You're not relying on Betty the
receiver operator to recognize the characteristic chirp as the agent's
radio is keyed, it's all done by computer now, but the basic idea is the
same. And as with most of this stuff, the basics are well known, but the
practical details are not, or, at least, are the proprietary secret sauce
in any practical system. (In a significant understatement, Dixon, in
"Spread Spectrum Systems" makes some comment about how synch acquisition
is the difficult part and won't be described in the book)

You might look at the unclassified proceedings of conferences like MILCOM
and find something. Googling with MASINT might also help.

time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

TX "fingerprinting" in WWII You seem to be forgetting that there were very few of the sophisticated digital timing systems were available 75 years ago. Traffic analysis was started early in 1938 or even before. By 1939 we knew all the nets used in Europe and had "Y" ( a corruption of WI, Wireless Intercept )operators monitoring the nets. Many of these were amateurs and they were allocated to specific nets and followed them around as they moved. They became very familiar with the "accents" of operators on their nets, and particularly before 1939 security procedures were very lax and "chatting" common-place.....but it was all aural. I suspect serious transmitter parameter logging was not done before the cold war when spectrum analysers, or at least pan-adapters became more readily available. To keep a little OnTopic .....you would have difficulty doing this with a BC-221.!! :-)) A crystal clock of this period was at least one fully utilised 6foot 19inch rack (there is one at Grenwich.) Alan G3NYK Alan G3NYK ----- Original Message ----- From: "jimlux" <jimlux@earthlink.net> To: <time-nuts@febo.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 10:02 PM Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Measuring receiver... > On 6/21/16 11:28 AM, Brooke Clarke wrote: >> Hi: >> >> During W.W.II there were secret methods of "fingerprinting" radio >> transmitters and separately the operators. >> I suspect the transmitter fingerprinting involved things like frequency >> accuracy, stability, CW rise and decay time, &Etc. For the operator some >> from of statistics on the timings associated with sending Morse Code. >> But. . . I haven't seen any papers describing this. Can anyone point >> me to a paper on this? >> > For "human controlled" stuff, e.g. recognizing someone's "fist", there's a > huge literature out there on biometric identification looking at things > like keyboard and mouse click timing - the timing requirements are pretty > slack, and hardly time-nuts level, unless you're looking to do it with > mechanical devices constructed from spare twigs and strands of kelp. > > There have been a variety of schemes for recognizing individual radios by > looking at the frequency vs time as they start up. Likewise, it's pretty > easy to distinguish radar magnetrons from each other. Not a lot of papers > about this, but you'll see it in advertising literature, or occasionally > in conference pubs (although I can't think of any off hand). There was > someone selling a repeater access control system that was based on the > transmitter fingerprint. > > But the real reason why you don't see any publications is that this stuff > is pretty classic signals intelligence (SIGINT or MASINT) and it is still > being used, and is all classified. You're not relying on Betty the > receiver operator to recognize the characteristic chirp as the agent's > radio is keyed, it's all done by computer now, but the basic idea is the > same. And as with most of this stuff, the basics are well known, but the > practical details are not, or, at least, are the proprietary secret sauce > in any practical system. (In a significant understatement, Dixon, in > "Spread Spectrum Systems" makes some comment about how synch acquisition > is the difficult part and won't be described in the book) > > You might look at the unclassified proceedings of conferences like MILCOM > and find something. Googling with MASINT might also help. > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there.

G/

Graham / KE9H

Tue, Jun 21, 2016 11:18 PM

This is heavily used in cellular system security and cellular unit
identification and tracking.
Do a google search on patents using the the term "RF fingerprinting" and
you will get quite a few hits. Mostly recent application to cellular
systems. You might look at the prior art listings and see if they take you
back somewhere. Although unlikely any classified methods were patented.

--- Graham

==

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 4:02 PM, jimlux jimlux@earthlink.net wrote:

On 6/21/16 11:28 AM, Brooke Clarke wrote:

Hi:

During W.W.II there were secret methods of "fingerprinting" radio
transmitters and separately the operators.
I suspect the transmitter fingerprinting involved things like frequency
accuracy, stability, CW rise and decay time, &Etc. For the operator some
from of statistics on the timings associated with sending Morse Code.
But. . . I haven't seen any papers describing this. Can anyone point
me to a paper on this?

For "human controlled" stuff, e.g. recognizing someone's "fist", there's

a huge literature out there on biometric identification looking at things
like keyboard and mouse click timing - the timing requirements are pretty
slack, and hardly time-nuts level, unless you're looking to do it with
mechanical devices constructed from spare twigs and strands of kelp.

There have been a variety of schemes for recognizing individual radios by
looking at the frequency vs time as they start up. Likewise, it's pretty
easy to distinguish radar magnetrons from each other. Not a lot of papers
about this, but you'll see it in advertising literature, or occasionally in
conference pubs (although I can't think of any off hand). There was
someone selling a repeater access control system that was based on the
transmitter fingerprint.

But the real reason why you don't see any publications is that this stuff
is pretty classic signals intelligence (SIGINT or MASINT) and it is still
being used, and is all classified. You're not relying on Betty the receiver
operator to recognize the characteristic chirp as the agent's radio is
keyed, it's all done by computer now, but the basic idea is the same. And
as with most of this stuff, the basics are well known, but the practical
details are not, or, at least, are the proprietary secret sauce in any
practical system. (In a significant understatement, Dixon, in "Spread
Spectrum Systems" makes some comment about how synch acquisition is the
difficult part and won't be described in the book)

You might look at the unclassified proceedings of conferences like MILCOM
and find something. Googling with MASINT might also help.

time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

This is heavily used in cellular system security and cellular unit identification and tracking. Do a google search on patents using the the term "RF fingerprinting" and you will get quite a few hits. Mostly recent application to cellular systems. You might look at the prior art listings and see if they take you back somewhere. Although unlikely any classified methods were patented. --- Graham == On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 4:02 PM, jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net> wrote: > On 6/21/16 11:28 AM, Brooke Clarke wrote: > >> Hi: >> >> During W.W.II there were secret methods of "fingerprinting" radio >> transmitters and separately the operators. >> I suspect the transmitter fingerprinting involved things like frequency >> accuracy, stability, CW rise and decay time, &Etc. For the operator some >> from of statistics on the timings associated with sending Morse Code. >> But. . . I haven't seen any papers describing this. Can anyone point >> me to a paper on this? >> >> For "human controlled" stuff, e.g. recognizing someone's "fist", there's > a huge literature out there on biometric identification looking at things > like keyboard and mouse click timing - the timing requirements are pretty > slack, and hardly time-nuts level, unless you're looking to do it with > mechanical devices constructed from spare twigs and strands of kelp. > > There have been a variety of schemes for recognizing individual radios by > looking at the frequency vs time as they start up. Likewise, it's pretty > easy to distinguish radar magnetrons from each other. Not a lot of papers > about this, but you'll see it in advertising literature, or occasionally in > conference pubs (although I can't think of any off hand). There was > someone selling a repeater access control system that was based on the > transmitter fingerprint. > > But the real reason why you don't see any publications is that this stuff > is pretty classic signals intelligence (SIGINT or MASINT) and it is still > being used, and is all classified. You're not relying on Betty the receiver > operator to recognize the characteristic chirp as the agent's radio is > keyed, it's all done by computer now, but the basic idea is the same. And > as with most of this stuff, the basics are well known, but the practical > details are not, or, at least, are the proprietary secret sauce in any > practical system. (In a significant understatement, Dixon, in "Spread > Spectrum Systems" makes some comment about how synch acquisition is the > difficult part and won't be described in the book) > > You might look at the unclassified proceedings of conferences like MILCOM > and find something. Googling with MASINT might also help. > > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. >

BC

Brooke Clarke

Tue, Jun 21, 2016 11:21 PM

Hi Alan:

I've read that prior to 7 Dec 1941 we were able to identify both radio operators (by their "fist") and radios by serial
number. So we could tell that Joe was not on his usual ship and by using DF we knew where that ship was located.

--
Have Fun,

Brooke Clarke
http://www.PRC68.com
http://www.end2partygovernment.com/2012Issues.html
The lesser of evils is still evil.

-------- Original Message --------

TX "fingerprinting" in WWII
You seem to be forgetting that there were very few of the sophisticated digital timing systems were available 75 years
ago. Traffic analysis was started early in 1938 or even before. By 1939 we knew all the nets used in Europe and had
"Y" ( a corruption of WI, Wireless Intercept )operators monitoring the nets. Many of these were amateurs and they were
allocated to specific nets and followed them around as they moved. They became very familiar with the "accents" of
operators on their nets, and particularly before 1939 security procedures were very lax and "chatting"
common-place.....but it was all aural.

I suspect serious transmitter parameter logging was not done before the cold war when spectrum analysers, or at least
pan-adapters became more readily available. To keep a little OnTopic .....you would have difficulty doing this with a
BC-221.!! :-)) A crystal clock of this period was at least one fully utilised 6foot 19inch rack (there is one at
Grenwich.)
Alan
G3NYK

Alan
G3NYK

----- Original Message ----- From: "jimlux" jimlux@earthlink.net
To: time-nuts@febo.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Measuring receiver...

On 6/21/16 11:28 AM, Brooke Clarke wrote:

Hi:

During W.W.II there were secret methods of "fingerprinting" radio
transmitters and separately the operators.
I suspect the transmitter fingerprinting involved things like frequency
accuracy, stability, CW rise and decay time, &Etc. For the operator some
from of statistics on the timings associated with sending Morse Code.
But. . . I haven't seen any papers describing this. Can anyone point
me to a paper on this?

For "human controlled" stuff, e.g. recognizing someone's "fist", there's a huge literature out there on biometric
identification looking at things like keyboard and mouse click timing - the timing requirements are pretty slack, and
hardly time-nuts level, unless you're looking to do it with mechanical devices constructed from spare twigs and
strands of kelp.

There have been a variety of schemes for recognizing individual radios by looking at the frequency vs time as they
start up. Likewise, it's pretty easy to distinguish radar magnetrons from each other. Not a lot of papers about
this, but you'll see it in advertising literature, or occasionally in conference pubs (although I can't think of any
off hand). There was someone selling a repeater access control system that was based on the transmitter fingerprint.

But the real reason why you don't see any publications is that this stuff is pretty classic signals intelligence
(SIGINT or MASINT) and it is still being used, and is all classified. You're not relying on Betty the receiver
operator to recognize the characteristic chirp as the agent's radio is keyed, it's all done by computer now, but the
basic idea is the same. And as with most of this stuff, the basics are well known, but the practical details are
not, or, at least, are the proprietary secret sauce in any practical system. (In a significant understatement, Dixon,
in "Spread Spectrum Systems" makes some comment about how synch acquisition is the difficult part and won't be
described in the book)

You might look at the unclassified proceedings of conferences like MILCOM and find something. Googling with MASINT
might also help.

time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Hi Alan: I've read that prior to 7 Dec 1941 we were able to identify both radio operators (by their "fist") and radios by serial number. So we could tell that Joe was not on his usual ship and by using DF we knew where that ship was located. -- Have Fun, Brooke Clarke http://www.PRC68.com http://www.end2partygovernment.com/2012Issues.html The lesser of evils is still evil. -------- Original Message -------- > TX "fingerprinting" in WWII > You seem to be forgetting that there were very few of the sophisticated digital timing systems were available 75 years > ago. Traffic analysis was started early in 1938 or even before. By 1939 we knew all the nets used in Europe and had > "Y" ( a corruption of WI, Wireless Intercept )operators monitoring the nets. Many of these were amateurs and they were > allocated to specific nets and followed them around as they moved. They became very familiar with the "accents" of > operators on their nets, and particularly before 1939 security procedures were very lax and "chatting" > common-place.....but it was all aural. > > I suspect serious transmitter parameter logging was not done before the cold war when spectrum analysers, or at least > pan-adapters became more readily available. To keep a little OnTopic .....you would have difficulty doing this with a > BC-221.!! :-)) A crystal clock of this period was at least one fully utilised 6foot 19inch rack (there is one at > Grenwich.) > Alan > G3NYK > > > Alan > G3NYK > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "jimlux" <jimlux@earthlink.net> > To: <time-nuts@febo.com> > Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 10:02 PM > Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Measuring receiver... > > >> On 6/21/16 11:28 AM, Brooke Clarke wrote: >>> Hi: >>> >>> During W.W.II there were secret methods of "fingerprinting" radio >>> transmitters and separately the operators. >>> I suspect the transmitter fingerprinting involved things like frequency >>> accuracy, stability, CW rise and decay time, &Etc. For the operator some >>> from of statistics on the timings associated with sending Morse Code. >>> But. . . I haven't seen any papers describing this. Can anyone point >>> me to a paper on this? >>> >> For "human controlled" stuff, e.g. recognizing someone's "fist", there's a huge literature out there on biometric >> identification looking at things like keyboard and mouse click timing - the timing requirements are pretty slack, and >> hardly time-nuts level, unless you're looking to do it with mechanical devices constructed from spare twigs and >> strands of kelp. >> >> There have been a variety of schemes for recognizing individual radios by looking at the frequency vs time as they >> start up. Likewise, it's pretty easy to distinguish radar magnetrons from each other. Not a lot of papers about >> this, but you'll see it in advertising literature, or occasionally in conference pubs (although I can't think of any >> off hand). There was someone selling a repeater access control system that was based on the transmitter fingerprint. >> >> But the real reason why you don't see any publications is that this stuff is pretty classic signals intelligence >> (SIGINT or MASINT) and it is still being used, and is all classified. You're not relying on Betty the receiver >> operator to recognize the characteristic chirp as the agent's radio is keyed, it's all done by computer now, but the >> basic idea is the same. And as with most of this stuff, the basics are well known, but the practical details are >> not, or, at least, are the proprietary secret sauce in any practical system. (In a significant understatement, Dixon, >> in "Spread Spectrum Systems" makes some comment about how synch acquisition is the difficult part and won't be >> described in the book) >> >> You might look at the unclassified proceedings of conferences like MILCOM and find something. Googling with MASINT >> might also help. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com >> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts >> and follow the instructions there. > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. >

JA

John Ackermann N8UR

Tue, Jun 21, 2016 11:29 PM

I've seen references that at least by the latter part of WW2 oscillographs were being used to identify transmitters and/or ops. It should be possible to deduce chirp, rise time, fall time of signals, all of which characterize the transmitter, as well as element spacing and other characteristics that help identify the operator, from oscilloscope snapshots of the demodulated audio at various sweep speeds.

On Jun 21, 2016, at 7:02 PM, Alan Melia alan.melia@btinternet.com wrote:

TX "fingerprinting" in WWII
You seem to be forgetting that there were very few of the sophisticated digital timing systems were available 75 years ago. Traffic analysis was started early in 1938 or even before. By 1939 we knew all the nets used in Europe and had "Y" ( a corruption of WI, Wireless Intercept )operators monitoring the nets. Many of these were amateurs and they were allocated to specific nets and followed them around as they moved. They became very familiar with the "accents" of operators on their nets, and particularly before 1939 security procedures were very lax and "chatting" common-place.....but it was all aural.

I suspect serious transmitter parameter logging was not done before the cold war when spectrum analysers, or at least pan-adapters became more readily available. To keep a little OnTopic .....you would have difficulty doing this with a BC-221.!! :-)) A crystal clock of this period was at least one fully utilised 6foot 19inch rack (there is one at Grenwich.)
Alan
G3NYK

Alan
G3NYK

----- Original Message ----- From: "jimlux" jimlux@earthlink.net
To: time-nuts@febo.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Measuring receiver...

On 6/21/16 11:28 AM, Brooke Clarke wrote:
Hi:

During W.W.II there were secret methods of "fingerprinting" radio
transmitters and separately the operators.
I suspect the transmitter fingerprinting involved things like frequency
accuracy, stability, CW rise and decay time, &Etc. For the operator some
from of statistics on the timings associated with sending Morse Code.
But. . . I haven't seen any papers describing this. Can anyone point
me to a paper on this?

For "human controlled" stuff, e.g. recognizing someone's "fist", there's a huge literature out there on biometric identification looking at things like keyboard and mouse click timing - the timing requirements are pretty slack, and hardly time-nuts level, unless you're looking to do it with mechanical devices constructed from spare twigs and strands of kelp.

There have been a variety of schemes for recognizing individual radios by looking at the frequency vs time as they start up. Likewise, it's pretty easy to distinguish radar magnetrons from each other. Not a lot of papers about this, but you'll see it in advertising literature, or occasionally in conference pubs (although I can't think of any off hand). There was someone selling a repeater access control system that was based on the transmitter fingerprint.

But the real reason why you don't see any publications is that this stuff is pretty classic signals intelligence (SIGINT or MASINT) and it is still being used, and is all classified. You're not relying on Betty the receiver operator to recognize the characteristic chirp as the agent's radio is keyed, it's all done by computer now, but the basic idea is the same. And as with most of this stuff, the basics are well known, but the practical details are not, or, at least, are the proprietary secret sauce in any practical system. (In a significant understatement, Dixon, in "Spread Spectrum Systems" makes some comment about how synch acquisition is the difficult part and won't be described in the book)

You might look at the unclassified proceedings of conferences like MILCOM and find something. Googling with MASINT might also help.

time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

I've seen references that at least by the latter part of WW2 oscillographs were being used to identify transmitters and/or ops. It should be possible to deduce chirp, rise time, fall time of signals, all of which characterize the transmitter, as well as element spacing and other characteristics that help identify the operator, from oscilloscope snapshots of the demodulated audio at various sweep speeds. > On Jun 21, 2016, at 7:02 PM, Alan Melia <alan.melia@btinternet.com> wrote: > > TX "fingerprinting" in WWII > You seem to be forgetting that there were very few of the sophisticated digital timing systems were available 75 years ago. Traffic analysis was started early in 1938 or even before. By 1939 we knew all the nets used in Europe and had "Y" ( a corruption of WI, Wireless Intercept )operators monitoring the nets. Many of these were amateurs and they were allocated to specific nets and followed them around as they moved. They became very familiar with the "accents" of operators on their nets, and particularly before 1939 security procedures were very lax and "chatting" common-place.....but it was all aural. > > I suspect serious transmitter parameter logging was not done before the cold war when spectrum analysers, or at least pan-adapters became more readily available. To keep a little OnTopic .....you would have difficulty doing this with a BC-221.!! :-)) A crystal clock of this period was at least one fully utilised 6foot 19inch rack (there is one at Grenwich.) > Alan > G3NYK > > > Alan > G3NYK > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "jimlux" <jimlux@earthlink.net> > To: <time-nuts@febo.com> > Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 10:02 PM > Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Measuring receiver... > > >>> On 6/21/16 11:28 AM, Brooke Clarke wrote: >>> Hi: >>> >>> During W.W.II there were secret methods of "fingerprinting" radio >>> transmitters and separately the operators. >>> I suspect the transmitter fingerprinting involved things like frequency >>> accuracy, stability, CW rise and decay time, &Etc. For the operator some >>> from of statistics on the timings associated with sending Morse Code. >>> But. . . I haven't seen any papers describing this. Can anyone point >>> me to a paper on this? >> For "human controlled" stuff, e.g. recognizing someone's "fist", there's a huge literature out there on biometric identification looking at things like keyboard and mouse click timing - the timing requirements are pretty slack, and hardly time-nuts level, unless you're looking to do it with mechanical devices constructed from spare twigs and strands of kelp. >> >> There have been a variety of schemes for recognizing individual radios by looking at the frequency vs time as they start up. Likewise, it's pretty easy to distinguish radar magnetrons from each other. Not a lot of papers about this, but you'll see it in advertising literature, or occasionally in conference pubs (although I can't think of any off hand). There was someone selling a repeater access control system that was based on the transmitter fingerprint. >> >> But the real reason why you don't see any publications is that this stuff is pretty classic signals intelligence (SIGINT or MASINT) and it is still being used, and is all classified. You're not relying on Betty the receiver operator to recognize the characteristic chirp as the agent's radio is keyed, it's all done by computer now, but the basic idea is the same. And as with most of this stuff, the basics are well known, but the practical details are not, or, at least, are the proprietary secret sauce in any practical system. (In a significant understatement, Dixon, in "Spread Spectrum Systems" makes some comment about how synch acquisition is the difficult part and won't be described in the book) >> >> You might look at the unclassified proceedings of conferences like MILCOM and find something. Googling with MASINT might also help. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com >> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts >> and follow the instructions there. > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there.

WH

William H. Fite

Wed, Jun 22, 2016 1:01 AM

In the days of my misspent youth, I worked as a telegrapher (one of the
very last) for a Norwegian shipping line. We sent and received both
Norwegian and English though few of us were bilingual. Between ships and
shore stations, there were about forty of us and we all could recognize
each other's "fists" with near-perfect accuracy. This is not difficult,
gentlemen, and does not require any esoteric signal analysis. Transmitters
would be a different story.

Bill KJ4SLP

On Tuesday, June 21, 2016, John Ackermann N8UR jra@febo.com wrote:

I've seen references that at least by the latter part of WW2 oscillographs
were being used to identify transmitters and/or ops. It should be possible
to deduce chirp, rise time, fall time of signals, all of which characterize
the transmitter, as well as element spacing and other characteristics that
help identify the operator, from oscilloscope snapshots of the demodulated
audio at various sweep speeds.

On Jun 21, 2016, at 7:02 PM, Alan Melia <alan.melia@btinternet.com

javascript:;> wrote:

TX "fingerprinting" in WWII
You seem to be forgetting that there were very few of the sophisticated

digital timing systems were available 75 years ago. Traffic analysis was
started early in 1938 or even before. By 1939 we knew all the nets used in
Europe and had "Y" ( a corruption of WI, Wireless Intercept )operators
monitoring the nets. Many of these were amateurs and they were allocated to
specific nets and followed them around as they moved. They became very
familiar with the "accents" of operators on their nets, and particularly
before 1939 security procedures were very lax and "chatting"
common-place.....but it was all aural.

I suspect serious transmitter parameter logging was not done before the

cold war when spectrum analysers, or at least pan-adapters became more
readily available. To keep a little OnTopic .....you would have difficulty
doing this with a BC-221.!! :-)) A crystal clock of this period was at
least one fully utilised 6foot 19inch rack (there is one at Grenwich.)

Alan
G3NYK

----- Original Message ----- From: "jimlux" <jimlux@earthlink.net

javascript:;>

To: <time-nuts@febo.com javascript:;>
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Measuring receiver...

On 6/21/16 11:28 AM, Brooke Clarke wrote:
Hi:

During W.W.II there were secret methods of "fingerprinting" radio
transmitters and separately the operators.
I suspect the transmitter fingerprinting involved things like frequency
accuracy, stability, CW rise and decay time, &Etc. For the operator

some

from of statistics on the timings associated with sending Morse Code.
But. . . I haven't seen any papers describing this. Can anyone point
me to a paper on this?

For "human controlled" stuff, e.g. recognizing someone's "fist",

there's a huge literature out there on biometric identification looking at
things like keyboard and mouse click timing - the timing requirements are
pretty slack, and hardly time-nuts level, unless you're looking to do it
with mechanical devices constructed from spare twigs and strands of kelp.

There have been a variety of schemes for recognizing individual radios

by looking at the frequency vs time as they start up. Likewise, it's pretty
easy to distinguish radar magnetrons from each other. Not a lot of papers
about this, but you'll see it in advertising literature, or occasionally in
conference pubs (although I can't think of any off hand). There was
someone selling a repeater access control system that was based on the
transmitter fingerprint.

But the real reason why you don't see any publications is that this

stuff is pretty classic signals intelligence (SIGINT or MASINT) and it is
still being used, and is all classified. You're not relying on Betty the
receiver operator to recognize the characteristic chirp as the agent's
radio is keyed, it's all done by computer now, but the basic idea is the
same. And as with most of this stuff, the basics are well known, but the
practical details are not, or, at least, are the proprietary secret sauce
in any practical system. (In a significant understatement, Dixon, in
"Spread Spectrum Systems" makes some comment about how synch acquisition is
the difficult part and won't be described in the book)

You might look at the unclassified proceedings of conferences like

MILCOM and find something. Googling with MASINT might also help.

time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com javascript:;
To unsubscribe, go to

https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts

and follow the instructions there.

time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com javascript:;
To unsubscribe, go to

https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts

and follow the instructions there.

time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com javascript:;
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

--
I am Pulse. Unbreakable.

In the days of my misspent youth, I worked as a telegrapher (one of the very last) for a Norwegian shipping line. We sent and received both Norwegian and English though few of us were bilingual. Between ships and shore stations, there were about forty of us and we all could recognize each other's "fists" with near-perfect accuracy. This is not difficult, gentlemen, and does not require any esoteric signal analysis. Transmitters would be a different story. Bill KJ4SLP On Tuesday, June 21, 2016, John Ackermann N8UR <jra@febo.com> wrote: > I've seen references that at least by the latter part of WW2 oscillographs > were being used to identify transmitters and/or ops. It should be possible > to deduce chirp, rise time, fall time of signals, all of which characterize > the transmitter, as well as element spacing and other characteristics that > help identify the operator, from oscilloscope snapshots of the demodulated > audio at various sweep speeds. > > > > On Jun 21, 2016, at 7:02 PM, Alan Melia <alan.melia@btinternet.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > TX "fingerprinting" in WWII > > You seem to be forgetting that there were very few of the sophisticated > digital timing systems were available 75 years ago. Traffic analysis was > started early in 1938 or even before. By 1939 we knew all the nets used in > Europe and had "Y" ( a corruption of WI, Wireless Intercept )operators > monitoring the nets. Many of these were amateurs and they were allocated to > specific nets and followed them around as they moved. They became very > familiar with the "accents" of operators on their nets, and particularly > before 1939 security procedures were very lax and "chatting" > common-place.....but it was all aural. > > > > I suspect serious transmitter parameter logging was not done before the > cold war when spectrum analysers, or at least pan-adapters became more > readily available. To keep a little OnTopic .....you would have difficulty > doing this with a BC-221.!! :-)) A crystal clock of this period was at > least one fully utilised 6foot 19inch rack (there is one at Grenwich.) > > Alan > > G3NYK > > > > > > Alan > > G3NYK > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "jimlux" <jimlux@earthlink.net > <javascript:;>> > > To: <time-nuts@febo.com <javascript:;>> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 10:02 PM > > Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Measuring receiver... > > > > > >>> On 6/21/16 11:28 AM, Brooke Clarke wrote: > >>> Hi: > >>> > >>> During W.W.II there were secret methods of "fingerprinting" radio > >>> transmitters and separately the operators. > >>> I suspect the transmitter fingerprinting involved things like frequency > >>> accuracy, stability, CW rise and decay time, &Etc. For the operator > some > >>> from of statistics on the timings associated with sending Morse Code. > >>> But. . . I haven't seen any papers describing this. Can anyone point > >>> me to a paper on this? > >> For "human controlled" stuff, e.g. recognizing someone's "fist", > there's a huge literature out there on biometric identification looking at > things like keyboard and mouse click timing - the timing requirements are > pretty slack, and hardly time-nuts level, unless you're looking to do it > with mechanical devices constructed from spare twigs and strands of kelp. > >> > >> There have been a variety of schemes for recognizing individual radios > by looking at the frequency vs time as they start up. Likewise, it's pretty > easy to distinguish radar magnetrons from each other. Not a lot of papers > about this, but you'll see it in advertising literature, or occasionally in > conference pubs (although I can't think of any off hand). There was > someone selling a repeater access control system that was based on the > transmitter fingerprint. > >> > >> But the real reason why you don't see any publications is that this > stuff is pretty classic signals intelligence (SIGINT or MASINT) and it is > still being used, and is all classified. You're not relying on Betty the > receiver operator to recognize the characteristic chirp as the agent's > radio is keyed, it's all done by computer now, but the basic idea is the > same. And as with most of this stuff, the basics are well known, but the > practical details are not, or, at least, are the proprietary secret sauce > in any practical system. (In a significant understatement, Dixon, in > "Spread Spectrum Systems" makes some comment about how synch acquisition is > the difficult part and won't be described in the book) > >> > >> You might look at the unclassified proceedings of conferences like > MILCOM and find something. Googling with MASINT might also help. > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com <javascript:;> > >> To unsubscribe, go to > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > >> and follow the instructions there. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com <javascript:;> > > To unsubscribe, go to > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > > and follow the instructions there. > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com <javascript:;> > To unsubscribe, go to > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. > -- I am Pulse. Unbreakable.

DL

Don Latham

Wed, Jun 22, 2016 3:27 AM

Yes, very simple for people, very difficult for “machinery”.
Don

On Jun 21, 2016, at 7:01 PM, William H. Fite omniryx@gmail.com wrote:

In the days of my misspent youth, I worked as a telegrapher (one of the
very last) for a Norwegian shipping line. We sent and received both
Norwegian and English though few of us were bilingual. Between ships and
shore stations, there were about forty of us and we all could recognize
each other's "fists" with near-perfect accuracy. This is not difficult,
gentlemen, and does not require any esoteric signal analysis. Transmitters
would be a different story.

Bill KJ4SLP

On Tuesday, June 21, 2016, John Ackermann N8UR <jra@febo.com mailto:jra@febo.com> wrote: