Regarding Observation 6991859 …
How do you thing ? Can we correlate this observation, and particulary weak “beep” 4min 25 sec after start of ogg-file with the observation made by my station LZ1NY_ TinyGS tinygs-webapp
Both GS operated by me - SatNOGS #2209 and LZ1NY_ TinyGS work in “paralel” - same antenna, LNA, feeder and then power splitter
I found few seconds difference between Satnogs and TinyGS logs(if it is the same packet…)
Thanks in advance for your opinion!
73! LZ1NY
From the available data about this received packets I dont able to identified/compare the time stamps. You say about something on log file, but dont published any details.
1.
On my web page about the satnogs record the time is explicitly in UTC, and the Time Frames at the waterfall are:
Timeframe 2023-01-07 12:16:45
2023-01-07 12:24:52
Maybe it is in Central European time 13:16 – 13:24 or 1:16 – 1:24
2.
In this time frame on your TinyGS console we can see 3 received packets with this time stamps:
1:18 PM, 1:20 PM, and 1:24 PM all received with CRC error
I put here some vizialised data, decorated with different icons from the dedicated page of this packet, has the time frame 1:20 PM
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Norby
Received on: January 7, 2023 1:20 PM
LoRa 436.703 Mhz SF: 10 CR: 5 BW: 250 kHz
Sat in Sun 
Eclipse Depth: -47.89º
Theoretical coverage 5123 km
2000mW 
21ºC
8247mV 
3171mW 21ºC
7648mW 
13246mAh 
3578mW
Board PMM: 13ºC PAM: 15ºC PDM: 11ºC
Solar Array X-: 11ºC X+: 12ºC
: 2045.4105
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It is another vizualized version:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Norby
Jan 7, 2023 1:20 PM (20 hours ago)
Mode
LoRa@436.703
Power
2000mW
Distance
888Km
Elevation
35.22º
RSSI
-114.75 dBm
SNR
-8.75 dB
Predicted Doppler
2688.20Hz
Frequency Error
-6218.06Hz
CRC Error
Received by
72 Stations
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
And finally you can download the raw data with labels “Raw parsed view”, use the >copy< link on this page:
https: //tinygs.com/packet/45c96f39-66a3-43ba-b59d-d0dd2531b97e
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
( Its seems, it is too long to put here all the structure )
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
If I understand well, this structure generated by the norby.py from the tinygs-decoders set based on the Norby sat,s katai file:
https: //github.com/4m1g0/tinygs-decoders/blob/master/norby.py
In this moment, I dont understand, how can interperet the time stamp of this structure, in this exemple this one:
“frameGenerationTime”: 23555210, …
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
So, if we havenot decoded data from the satnogs recorded file, it is not easy to identify the packets.
Maybe can try to use lora gnurdio block for decode something from the file?
t.janos
Hi
About SatNOGS - OK! The time is UTC. ( however, it is a good idea to write this explicitly!)
About TinyGS - Again the Time Zone is not explicitly shown. But I came to conclusion it is viewer’s of the page local time (not observer’s).
Thats why you think it is 1:20 PM CET , it is the same I thing 2:20 EET, the same time in Satnogs record
Please look at:
May be the reason for time difference is the fact - Satnogs shows GFSK9k6 packet(very weak indeed, yet visible) but decoded data from tinyGS is LoRa packet - much wider BW 250kHz (not visible at all looking the Audacity screen shot above) ??
Thank you for your attention to my question and for the answer!
73! Victor / LZ1NY
Maybe it needs to be more visible. But on the other hand we don’t use any timezoned datetimes in all of our projects. And if it is needed almost all the times we add the timezone. In other words for SatNOGS the default is UTC time. 
Good morning Fredy!
It is my fault… sorry!
Of course it is enough (yes, for people who can read 
)
All good!
73, Victor / LZ1NY
