Received-SPF: neutral (gmail.com: 193.82.116.20 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org)
Message-ID: <004b01c65c09$afc51e30$0300a8c0@LAPTOP>
From: "Peter Martinez" <peter.martinez@btinternet.com>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <200603311839550854.021DC57E@smtp.wanadoo.fr> <000601c65582$aefd8ec0$cada380a@acer5gi5q0ubzj> <8bf118410604040532gf1861f9r9dfaa0fe2d6f4be1@mail.gmail.com> <004501c657e5$b779fbf0$0300a8c0@LAPTOP> <44395583.9070200@g3ysx.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 19:13:29 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: LF: Rugby LORAN measurement?
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Status: O

>From G3PLX:

I don't think the presence of the spurious emission (near 60kHz) from the 
LORAN transmitter would cause any trouble to MSF itself. A quick calculation 
says that the nearest spurii from the Rugby LORAN transmitter to the MSF 
transmission would be respectively 8.9139804 Hz low and 5.94265 Hz high of 
60kHz, and probably a long long way down on the main 60kHz carrier.

Of course that doesn't say that there isn't some disturbance from the LORAN 
transmitter to the MSF transmitter due to non-linear effects arising because 
of the proximity of the two transmitters to each other. The NPL people might 
be more worried about that than the far-off sidebands which bother us up 
here. But if there were effects like this, the solution wouldn't help us at 
all.

73
Peter