Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32203 invoked from network); 8 Sep 2004 11:23:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ptb-spamcore02.plus.net) (192.168.71.3) by ptb-mailstore01.plus.net with SMTP; 8 Sep 2004 11:23:29 -0000 Received: from mailnull by ptb-spamcore02.plus.net with spamcore-l-b (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD) id 1C50ZJ-000Pli-TI for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Wed, 08 Sep 2004 12:24:54 +0100 Received: from [192.168.67.3] (helo=ptb-mxcore03.plus.net) by ptb-spamcore02.plus.net with esmtp (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD) id 1C50ZJ-000Plf-Qf for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Wed, 08 Sep 2004 12:24:53 +0100 Received: from post.thorcom.com ([193.82.116.20]) by ptb-mxcore03.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1C50Xw-0002k6-Br for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Wed, 08 Sep 2004 12:23:28 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1C50Xb-0004iM-Kd for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 08 Sep 2004 12:23:07 +0100 Received: from [193.82.116.30] (helo=relay.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1C50Xb-0004iB-74 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 08 Sep 2004 12:23:07 +0100 Received: from h14.rdg.cp.net ([209.228.29.64] helo=n068.sc1.cp.net) by relay.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1C50XX-0002aH-8A for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 08 Sep 2004 12:23:07 +0100 Received: from l8p8y6 (62.252.204.189) by n068.sc1.cp.net (7.0.030.2) id 412E4F82000D17DB for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 11:22:57 +0000 Message-ID: <000201c491d5$7059a040$bdccfc3e@l8p8y6> From: "hamilton mal" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <000c01c49078$54a6a860$4ceafc3e@l8p8y6> <413CADD0.30500@genesiswireless.us> Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 23:38:37 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-SPF-Result: relay.thorcom.net: 209.228.29.64 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of virgin.net X-Spam-Score: 3.9 (+++) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=no,DATE_IN_PAST_96_XX=1.238,HTML_30_40=0.809,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,HTML_TITLE_EMPTY=0.544,RCVD_IN_NJABL=0.1,RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY=1.101,RCVD_IN_SORBS=0.1 Subject: Re: LF: Static Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.6 required=5.0 tests=DATE_IN_PAST_96_XX,HTML_30_40, HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_TITLE_EMPTY autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Filtered: by PlusNet SpamCORE (v3.00) Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
 
----- Original Message -----
From: WE0H Mike
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: LF: Static

Maybe you or Granny next door have some of those noisy lamps in the house? My loops are always quieter than my vertical.
 
Like I said the static QRN is from  storms and NOT local. I do not have any local noise problems since I live out in the country and there are no overhead electrical or telephone lines. The static QRN is the same on the resonated 80m loop and the resonated vertical.
You have the wrong end of the stick. I am discussing electrical storms and lot local issues.
G3KEV


Later,
-- 
Mike
WE0H
WD2XGI


hamilton mal wrote:
The QRN static is still bad on 137khz and 160 metres. Receiving 137 Khz signals on my 80 metre loop suffers just the same as my vertical. Both produce the same level of static. The theory about loop advantage over a vertical is not correct.
A very small loop might be different. I have never used one so do not know. Trying to DX last night on 160 was a problem.
Nothing heard beyond SV2
73 de Mal/G3KEV :-!