Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 193.82.116.20 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) client-ip=193.82.116.20;
From: "John W Gould" <jwgould@iee.org.uk>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:56:13 +0100
Message-ID: <001d01c7e01d$fbf131b0$0b01a8c0@acer5gi5q0ubzj>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <000101c7df79$27f3bb70$0b01a8c0@acer5gi5q0ubzj>
Subject: LF: RE: RE: 500 - QRP tests 14/8/07
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Status: O

I thought that I would resend this as I would really like some figures =
on
paths of this length.  Since I sent the e-mail yesterday it looks as if =
I
will need to provide a short report to Ofcom at the RSGB/Ofcom Forum =
that
meets quarterly in September - and the draft for that report will need =
to be
done by end-next week.  Thus, any figures on the actual performance =
achieved
on this band will be of value.  On the separate topic of 600/160 (and
perhaps 136kHz) comparison, this could usefully be tried now =
(mid-Summer) as
again it could provide some useful info.  Again ERP, S/S+N, absolute
noise-floor measurements, RX bandwidth, etc, would be key as these would =
be
the parameters that properly describe the propagation being achieved.

I need this type of info so that we stand a chance of maitaining, and
perhaps extending, our experimental basis on this frequency.

73 John, G3WKL
RSGB HF Manager

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
[mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] On Behalf Of John W Gould
Sent: 15 August 2007 21:16
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: LF: RE: 500 - QRP tests 14/8/07


John, this and the recent contacts with G3OLB are of interest to me, =
given
their range, as I've no doubt that Ofcom will want some feedback on what =
we
are achieving in terms of range.  We have as you know in mind to try and =
see
if they will allow us a little more ERP  (but don't hold your breath!).

I'm sorry, but I've been away a lot and often too busy when I'm at home =
to
check past e-mails, so it would be helpful to me if you could convert =
the
power levels below into ERP for me (you refer to your normal power =
providing
an aerial current that would provide an estimated 100mW ERP from your
aerial, but I'm not sure what TX power this is so can't scale the =
figures
below).

I'd be interested to know as well the estimated ERP for the G3OLB =
contact,
the nominal RX bandwidth and some indication of how easy the signal was =
to
copy (I presume that it was conventional CW).=20

You might try=20

http://www.wdc.rl.ac.uk/ionosondes/view_latest.html

and click the latest ionogram button (blank password I think)

or=20

http://www.n4gn.com/prop.html for lots of links.

73 John, G3WKL
RSGB HF Manager