Return-Path: Received: (qmail 79302 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2005 22:14:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ptb-spamcore02.plus.net) (192.168.71.3) by ptb-mailstore01.plus.net with SMTP; 19 Jan 2005 22:14:52 -0000 Received: from mailnull by ptb-spamcore02.plus.net with spamcore-l-b (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD) id 1CrO27-000BBG-BS for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:10:37 +0000 Received: from [192.168.67.3] (helo=ptb-mxcore03.plus.net) by ptb-spamcore02.plus.net with esmtp (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD) id 1CrO26-000BAZ-7I for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:10:34 +0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com ([193.82.116.20]) by ptb-mxcore03.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1CrO6C-000OXl-0R for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:14:48 +0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1CrO4u-0008EW-3j for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:13:28 +0000 Received: from [193.82.116.30] (helo=relay.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1CrO4r-0008EA-Gw for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:13:25 +0000 Received: from smtp814.mail.ukl.yahoo.com ([217.12.12.204]) by relay.thorcom.net with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1CrO4o-0008Aw-Tu for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:13:25 +0000 Received: from unknown (HELO w4o8m9) (james.moritz@btopenworld.com@81.135.14.175 with login) by smtp814.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Jan 2005 22:13:02 -0000 Message-ID: <001e01c4fe73$be3ed720$af0e8751@w4o8m9> From: "James Moritz" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <000501c4fe53$014cfd60$e6a4c593@RD40002> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:10:52 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-SPF-Result: relay.thorcom.net: 217.12.12.204 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of btopenworld.com X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=failed,HTML_60_70=0.027,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 Subject: LF: 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

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