Return-Path: Received: (qmail 58859 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2005 02:25:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ptb-spamcore02.plus.net) (192.168.71.3) by ptb-mailstore01.plus.net with SMTP; 20 Jan 2005 02:25:08 -0000 Received: from mailnull by ptb-spamcore02.plus.net with spamcore-l-b (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD) id 1CrRwJ-000E7w-Ln for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:20:55 +0000 Received: from [192.168.67.1] (helo=ptb-mxcore01.plus.net) by ptb-spamcore02.plus.net with esmtp (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD) id 1CrRwJ-000E7m-7Y for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:20:51 +0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com ([193.82.116.20]) by ptb-mxcore01.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1CrS0W-0005xZ-5y for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:25:12 +0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1CrRxG-0002Ub-Km for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:21:50 +0000 Received: from [193.82.116.30] (helo=relay.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1CrRxG-0002UO-40 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:21:50 +0000 Received: from stress.telefonica.net ([213.4.129.135] helo=tnetsmtp2.mail.isp) by relay.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1CrRxB-0000h4-DO for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:21:50 +0000 Received: from UserADSL ([83.42.12.179]) by tnetsmtp2.mail.isp (terra.es) with ESMTP id IALFVM00.S15 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2005 03:21:22 +0100 Message-ID: <001801c4fe96$aa61c460$2101a8c0@UserADSL> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_Manuel?= To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:20:51 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 X-SPF-Result: relay.thorcom.net: 213.4.129.135 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of telefonica.net X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=failed,FORGED_RCVD_HELO=0.05,HTML_60_70=0.027,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 Subject: LF: Fw: Re: RE: SAQ transmission Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_40_50,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

Hello Jim and all:

The signals from SAQ were at similar levels that last year, around 42 dB(µV/m), equivalent to the Jim´s measurement but at 2100 km from Grimeton. The RF signal/noise ratio around 16 dB, using 200 Hz IF bandwith filter.

73 de José EA1PX, loc IN53ti

----- Original Message -----

From: James Moritz

To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 10:10 PM

Subject: LF: Re: RE: SAQ transmission

Dear LF Group,

I made an estimate of SAQ's field strength, using a loop antenna and SLM, which came out to 130uV/m. It is around 1000km to Grimeton from my QTH, for which the ERP works out to about 340W - which seems very low. Ground wave losses could account for a few more dB, but I'm sure SAQ used to be stronger than this - I can't find any immediate fault with the equipment or the calculation, and other signals come out about the right level. Has anybody else found SAQ to be weaker than it used to be?

Cheers, Jim Moritz

73 de M0BMU