Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dd01.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id DA00438000081; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 03:22:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TAbpI-000535-0x for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 09 Sep 2012 08:21:04 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TAbpH-00052w-57 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 09 Sep 2012 08:21:03 +0100 Received: from out1.ip05ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.241]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TAbpE-0007zi-Pd for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 09 Sep 2012 08:21:02 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgQFAJgwTFBcHYos/2dsb2JhbABFhgefAJRJggOBCIIbBQEBBQgBAQMWMwIsAQEDBQIBAxEEAQEKIQICFAEEGgYWCAYTCgECAgEBiAOnf5FpixOFJIESA41hmBmCZg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,394,1344207600"; d="scan'208,217";a="393024042" Received: from host-92-29-138-44.as13285.net (HELO xphd97xgq27nyf) ([92.29.138.44]) by out1.ip05ir2.opaltelecom.net with SMTP; 09 Sep 2012 08:20:59 +0100 Message-ID: <001101cd8e5b$a68fea30$0501a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> From: "mal hamilton" To: References: <12fe8.4c562f1.3d7d1434@aol.com> <504BC546.2000105@gmail.com> <4C2DCE93-0E21-440E-80E9-7E10DBA97FEB@dk8kw.de> <504BF2AB.1060306@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 07:20:54 -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: 3.8 (+++) 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: Stefan Write a report about a QRM generator. This is not the first time this has happened on both LF es MF.when operating from an ex commercial site antenna. These commercial sites were used for Broadcasting and do not have a suitable environment for Receiving when used by radio amateurs, usually the antenna is too large on RX and picks up all the local unwantedl noise. An attenuator would most certainly be required on RX plus a good quality receiver. If I remember correctly every time that radio amateurs used these type of sites they ALL had the same problem and two of these events happened in the UK on 137 Khz a few years back. Large antennas are excellent when used in a Rural environment but not in a built up industrial estate or similar. A good receiver and flexible input attenuator is also useful Advice for future exploits would be to visit the site beforehand and do a field/environment test and do not be tempted to TX if there is no possibility of hearing anyone on the frequency of interest. Another point is that the majority of LF es MF operators are using BEACON mode only and have NO experience when it comes to having a real time QSO and lack Receiving techniques. ie BEACON MODE es QSL VIA INTERNET, some probably do not even have a Receiver in the shack. To add to the confusion yesterday evening one OZ station was in CW Beacon Mode on the QSO frequency of 472.5 Kh sending a long list of information and QSL VIA INTERNET. [...] Content analysis details: (3.8 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [62.24.128.241 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.8 FSL_XM_419 Old OE version in X-Mailer only seen in 419 spam -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 1.0 FSL_UA FSL_UA 2.0 AXB_XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_024C2 AXB_XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_024C2 X-Scan-Signature: 974e9bcd09e4f3403f97af2f38f8fb73 Subject: Re: LF: Re: Re: Re: DK0SWF antenna Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000E_01CD8E5B.A61D7950" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.3 required=5.0 tests=CELL_PHONE_BOOST,HTML_20_30, HTML_MESSAGE,NO_EXPERIENCE 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-sid: 3039ac1d408d504c43cc6a65 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01CD8E5B.A61D7950 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Stefan Write a report about a QRM generator. This is not the first time this has happened on both LF es MF.when = operating from an ex commercial site antenna. These commercial sites were used for Broadcasting and do not have a = suitable environment for Receiving when used by radio amateurs, usually = the antenna is too large on RX and picks up all the local unwantedl = noise. An attenuator would most certainly be required on RX plus a good = quality receiver. If I remember correctly every time that radio amateurs used these type = of sites they ALL had the same problem and two of these events happened = in the UK on 137 Khz a few years back. Large antennas are excellent when used in a Rural environment but not in = a built up industrial estate or similar. A good receiver and flexible input attenuator is also useful Advice for future exploits would be to visit the site beforehand and do = a field/environment test and do not be tempted to TX if there is no = possibility of hearing anyone on the frequency of interest. Another point is that the majority of LF es MF operators are using = BEACON mode only and have NO experience when it comes to having a real = time QSO and lack Receiving techniques. ie BEACON MODE es QSL VIA = INTERNET, some probably do not even have a Receiver in the shack. To add to the confusion yesterday evening one OZ station was in CW = Beacon Mode on the QSO frequency of 472.5 Kh sending a long list of = information and QSL VIA INTERNET. =20 de G3KEV =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Stefan Sch=C3=A4fer=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2012 1:36 AM Subject: Re: LF: Re: Re: Re: DK0SWF antenna That's it, Geri! We are coming from LF to MF, so MF is not that spectacular. But if = you're coming from HF to MF, that must be much more exciting and new to = explore such a "low" band wher all the stuff "must" be homemade. If they will write a report about their experiment and results, they = will cause more interest for others, which makes the band even more = alive. So the results can only be positive, even without 100s of QSOs. 73, Stefan/DK7FC Am 09.09.2012 00:47, schrieb Holger 'Geri' DK8KW DI2BO W1KW:=20 John, A WSPR transmission for the same length of time would gather much = more usefuly information than calling CQ with no hope of hearing any = replies? I think it all depends on what we expect to get out of our amateur = radio activity. What would a WSPR signal reveal other than that what = everybody who ever had talked to the marine guys already knew: that a MF = signal can be heard a few thousand miles away.=20 Here we have a group of people setting up a fieldday station under = less than optimal conditions, not experienced with MF operation at all = yet - and had trouble to receive - so what? How long did it take us = "experienced" guys to be where we are today? Did it really kill some = 'valuable' QSOs tonight that we will never have another chance to have = again? Just relax, the band is still there tomorrow, sooner or later we = will all have contacted each other numerous times, in CW, WSPR, QRSS or = whatever mode.=20 By the way: I had a QSO with Bert, DF2PI who was operating DK0SWF = this evening, and I was able to hear and feel his excitement to explore = a new band. Did we all forget on how we started, on how we had to make our own = experiences when we began and what fun we had? 73 Geri, DK8KW & DI2BO ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01CD8E5B.A61D7950 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =EF=BB=BF
Stefan
Write a report about a QRM = generator.
This is not the first time this has happened on = both LF es=20 MF.when operating from an ex commercial site antenna.
These commercial sites were used for = Broadcasting and do=20 not have a suitable environment for Receiving when used by radio = amateurs,=20 usually the antenna is too large on RX and picks up all the = local=20 unwantedl noise. An attenuator would most certainly be required on = RX plus=20 a good quality receiver.
If I remember correctly every time that radio = amateurs=20 used these type of sites they ALL had the same problem and two of these = events=20 happened in the UK on 137 Khz a few years back.
Large antennas are excellent when used in a = Rural=20 environment but not in a built up industrial estate or = similar.
A good receiver and flexible input attenuator is = also=20 useful
Advice for future exploits would be to visit the = site=20 beforehand and do a field/environment test and do not be tempted to TX = if there=20 is no possibility of hearing anyone on the frequency of = interest.
Another point is that the majority of LF es MF = operators=20 are using BEACON mode only and have NO experience when it comes to = having a real=20 time QSO and lack Receiving techniques. ie BEACON MODE es QSL VIA = INTERNET, some=20 probably do not even have a Receiver in the shack.
To add to the confusion yesterday evening one OZ = station=20 was in CW Beacon Mode on the QSO frequency of 472.5 Kh sending = a long=20 list of information and QSL VIA INTERNET.
 
 
 
de G3KEV
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Stefan = Sch=C3=A4fer
Sent: Sunday, September 09, = 2012 1:36=20 AM
Subject: Re: LF: Re: Re: Re: = DK0SWF=20 antenna

That's it, Geri!

We are coming from LF to MF, so = MF is=20 not that spectacular. But if you're coming from HF to MF, that must be = much=20 more exciting and new to explore such a "low" band wher all the stuff = "must"=20 be homemade.
If they will write a report about their experiment and = results, they will cause more interest for others, which makes the = band even=20 more alive. So the results can only be positive, even without 100s of=20 QSOs.

73, Stefan/DK7FC

Am 09.09.2012 00:47, schrieb = Holger=20 'Geri' DK8KW DI2BO W1KW:=20
John,

 A WSPR = transmission=20 for the same length of time would gather much more usefuly = information=20 than calling CQ with no hope of hearing any=20 replies?

I think it all depends on what we expect to get out = of our=20 amateur radio activity. What would a WSPR signal reveal other than = that what=20 everybody who ever had talked to the marine guys already knew: that = a MF=20 signal can be heard a few thousand miles away. 

Here we have a group of people setting up a fieldday station = under less=20 than optimal conditions, not experienced with MF operation at all = yet - and=20 had trouble to receive - so what? How long did it take us = "experienced" guys=20 to be where we are today? Did it really kill some 'valuable' QSOs = tonight=20 that we will never have another chance to have again? Just relax, = the band=20 is still there tomorrow, sooner or later we will all have contacted = each=20 other numerous times, in CW, WSPR, QRSS or whatever = mode. 

By the way: I had a QSO with Bert, DF2PI who was operating = DK0SWF this=20 evening, and I was able to hear and feel his excitement to explore a = new=20 band.

Did we all forget on how we started, on how we had to make our = own=20 experiences when we began and what fun we had?

73

Geri, DK8KW & = DI2BO

------=_NextPart_000_000E_01CD8E5B.A61D7950--