Return-Path: <owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Received: (qmail 69158 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2004 17:45:25 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ptb-spamcore02.plus.net) (192.168.71.3)
by ptb-mailstore02.plus.net with SMTP; 6 Sep 2004 17:45:25 -0000
Received: from mailnull by ptb-spamcore02.plus.net with spamcore-l-b (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD)
id 1C4NZJ-000BDp-T0
for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Mon, 06 Sep 2004 18:46:18 +0100
Received: from [192.168.67.3] (helo=ptb-mxcore03.plus.net)
by ptb-spamcore02.plus.net with esmtp (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD)
id 1C4NZJ-000BDh-P0
for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Mon, 06 Sep 2004 18:46:17 +0100
Received: from post.thorcom.com ([193.82.116.20])
by ptb-mxcore03.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1C4NYD-000OI9-JN
for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Mon, 06 Sep 2004 18:45:09 +0100
Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14)
id 1C4NXH-0000Eq-4f
for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 06 Sep 2004 18:44:11 +0100
Received: from [193.82.116.30] (helo=relay.thorcom.net)
by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14)
id 1C4NXG-0000Eh-PN
for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 06 Sep 2004 18:44:10 +0100
Received: from h36.rdg.cp.net ([209.228.29.85] helo=n082.sc1.cp.net)
by relay.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.41)
id 1C4NX6-0002Se-Bn
for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 06 Sep 2004 18:44:10 +0100
Received: from l8p8y6 (62.252.234.76) by n082.sc1.cp.net (7.0.030.2)
id 412E3FDB000A249C for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 17:43:54 +0000
Message-ID: <000c01c49078$54a6a860$4ceafc3e@l8p8y6>
From: "hamilton mal" <g3kev.ham@virgin.net>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 00:06:05 +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: 209.228.29.85 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of virgin.net
X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++)
X-Spam-Report: autolearn=no,DATE_IN_PAST_96_XX=1.238,HTML_30_40=0.809,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,RCVD_IN_SORBS=0.1
Subject: 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=2.0 required=5.0 tests=DATE_IN_PAST_96_XX,HTML_30_40,
HTML_MESSAGE 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
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4807.2300" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Nothing heard beyond SV2 </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>73 de Mal/G3KEV</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>