Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-md02.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 182783800008E; Mon, 23 Jul 2012 13:33:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1StMUi-00055E-Kq for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 23 Jul 2012 18:32:32 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1StMUi-000555-3O for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 23 Jul 2012 18:32:32 +0100 Received: from out1.ip06ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.242]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1StMUg-00048x-45 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 23 Jul 2012 18:32:30 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AioFAA6KDVBcF/NT/2dsb2JhbABFhW+EL69AgQiCGwUBAQUIAQEDFg8BIwIsAQEDBQIBAxEEAQEDAgUhAgIUAQQaBhYIBhMKAQICAQEKh3aPeZoRklSBIIotG4UmgRIDjVqXfIJf X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,639,1336345200"; d="scan'208";a="545979070" Received: from host-92-23-243-83.as13285.net (HELO xphd97xgq27nyf) ([92.23.243.83]) by out1.ip06ir2.opaltelecom.net with SMTP; 23 Jul 2012 18:32:28 +0100 Message-ID: <001101cd68f9$1e885910$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> From: "mal hamilton" To: References: <002801cd67f2$b2d3bd60$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <7B9F9E1EC7CF44AAB326502FF7F3A6BE@W1KW> <500C35E0.8010507@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <43A1879A-58FF-480A-A148-65811EAB486E@dk8kw.de> <500D33D1.2090609@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <500D3A23.7090207@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 17:32:22 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Score: 3.1 (+++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: I shall remain Silent while you devour each others observations, however G8POC would like me to intervene so that he could ATTACH. He finds it difficult to tell a DIT from a DASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! maybe an Alligator g3kev [...] Content analysis details: (3.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [62.24.128.242 listed in list.dnswl.org] 1.0 FSL_XM_419 Old OE version in X-Mailer only seen in 419 spam -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.4 FSL_UA FSL_UA 1.7 AXB_XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_024C2 AXB_XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_024C2 X-Scan-Signature: b1e5ebccbad86c8ca1fd46d24f0285de Subject: Re: LF: Re: 502 CQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=BE_AMAZED 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-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:480150144:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d6056500d8aff1453 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none I shall remain Silent while you devour each others observations, however G8POC would like me to intervene so that he could ATTACH. He finds it difficult to tell a DIT from a DASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! maybe an Alligator g3kev ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefan Schäfer" To: Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 11:48 AM Subject: Re: LF: Re: 502 CQ PS: There is no definition that your ears have to be at least as good as your mouth. Especially on LF and MF there are much more RX-only stations who are happy to receive a signal, maybe even in CW. The bigger your mouth, the wider the distance you can reach RX-stations. If i would be a RX-only station on LF, i would be amazed by receiving a signal from e.g. > 3000km. If nothing can be received then i would tend to focus on other bands after some time. And who knows, maybe some of these RX stations become interested to start arranging a TX system as well! On the other side, i am happy to receive signal reports from OMs with big ears. So it is always worth for everyone to do what is possible by the personal limitations, the RX and TX side indenpendently. :-) 73, Stefan/DK7FC Am 23.07.2012 13:21, schrieb Stefan Schäfer: > Hi Geri, > > Am 23.07.2012 08:17, schrieb Holger 'Geri' DK8KW DI2BO W1KW: >> Yes, it's partly due to groundwave/skywave conditions but I am >> already known as the crocodile (big mouth, tiny ears) over here in >> Northern Germany because my signal is 599 all around while I can >> barely hear people. > > Mostly the description "crocodile" is used by those who are unable (or > somehow unwilling) to radiate a decent signal on the band, LF or MF. > If a poor antenna is used and then just a few 10 watts RF power, then > it may be normal that you cannot hear them, depending on the path and > time and QRN situation. If you have a good antenna and high power then > it is no problem for others to hear you. If those OMs think "i can > hear him but he cannot hear me, so he is a "crocodile"" then this is > not your problem. So maybe you simply have a big mouth and normal ears > but the other station has a small moth and normal ears! :-) > >> On LF I had optimized my receiving system pretty much but on MF I >> have a high noise floor, probably from household electronics. > Hm, normally this is a stronger problem on LF. But PA7EY has reported > the same, his LF noisefloor is lower... > >> One solution surely is to put an e-field antenna some 25m away from >> the house into the garden, equally far away from all houses in the >> neighborhood. > Yes this is certainly a good idea. For me this is no option though. > >> Currently I am using my transmitting umbrella antenna to receive, >> which always proved best on LF but probably needs some re-thinking >> for MF. > My transmit antenna produces a big receive signal level of course but > the S/N is at least 6 dB worse than the small active E field probe > produces! (Of course i used an attenuator to achieve the same signal > level, for comparison). > > > > 73, Stefan/DK7FC