Message-ID: <004d01bfa608$03c27cd0$0a00a8c0@server1.ThreeLakes.ca>
From: "Larry Kayser" <kayser@sympatico.ca>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: LF: Discussion, please, Coast location vs DCF39
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 07:53:09 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

Gentlemen:

Rik,  ON7YD, wrote....


>But the fact that they are far
>more west compared to DCF39 may nibble of some dB's.

and then Jim Moritz, M0BMU wrote.......

>so it might be worth the people across the pond having a listen over
>the weekend.


There has been much discussion about Antennas and ERP, would you all humour
me with a discussion, as vigorous as possible, on TWO issues of path loss...

The first, the difference in path loss from DCF39 Transmitter location in
Germany to a good location on the west coast of the UK, EI, GW, G, GM.......

and second, the difference in path loss from the EAST coast of Newfoundland
from an inland site in Eastern Ontario.   My home is about 1600 kms west of
the Newfoundland coast.

and my thanks to Jim Moritz, M0BMU who wrote.....

>I also noticed DCF39 was off air at about 0100utc last night. It was
>back on again later.

I was starting to think I had an intermittent in the system at one point.

A vigorous discussion on the path loss over land issues will be most
appreciated.

Larry
VA3LK