Return-Path: Received: from rly-me04.mx.aol.com (rly-me04.mail.aol.com [172.20.83.38]) by air-me03.mail.aol.com (v123.4) with ESMTP id MAILINME033-9ad49f9657a38e; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 04:47:04 -0400 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-me04.mx.aol.com (v123.4) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINME041-9ad49f9657a38e; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 04:46:53 -0400 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1LzRti-0008RB-Bh for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:45:38 +0100 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1LzRth-0008R2-V5 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:45:37 +0100 Received: from ttsmtp-1.cpwnetworks.com ([62.24.128.242] helo=ttsmtp.cpwnetworks.com) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1LzRtg-0004AR-Sy for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:45:37 +0100 X-Path: TalkTalk-smtp X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnQGAHMB+UlOlLwV/2dsb2JhbACCJC+BeoRWgmoGwzGDfwU Received: from unknown (HELO mal769a60aa920) ([78.148.188.21]) by ttsmtp.cpwnetworks.com with SMTP; 30 Apr 2009 09:45:30 +0100 Message-ID: <000e01c9c970$042bcfb0$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920> From: "mal hamilton" To: "rsgb" Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:45:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Karma: unknown: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 Subject: LF: RX NOISE Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000B_01C9C978.656F6EF0" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,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-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C9C978.656F6EF0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Nearly every 500 Khz operator that I communicate with seems to have a Noise=20= problem on Receive, therefore in order to overcome this common noise complai= nt I would suggest a request to OFCOM for an increase in ERP at the TX end t= o 20W erp. This hopefully would give a better signal over noise at the RX en= d.=20 I recently conducted some tests by reducing my TX erp until the signal disap= peared into the noise at the RX end and was surprised by how much power was=20= needed to overcome this noise problem. I checked two UK grabbers as well and= and the results were poor. The mode used was normal CW. =20 73 de mal/g3kev ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C9C978.656F6EF0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Nearly every 500 Khz operator that I commun= icate=20 with seems to have a Noise problem on Receive, therefore in order to overcom= e=20 this common noise complaint I would suggest a request to OFCOM for an increa= se=20 in ERP at the TX end to 20W erp. This hopefully would give a better signal o= ver=20 noise at the RX end.
I recently conducted some tests by reducing= my=20 TX erp until the signal disappeared into the noise at the RX end a= nd=20 was surprised by how much power was needed to overcome this noise=20 problem. I checked two UK grabbers as well and and the result= s=20 were poor.
The mode used was normal CW.  <= /DIV>
73 de mal/g3kev
 
------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C9C978.656F6EF0--