Message-ID: <006501c97636$422fa4e0$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920>
From: "mal hamilton" <g3kevmal@talktalk.net>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <F4E8A04C3CBA4C67AE9C3318F2F40C4F@JimPC> <496D13FA.5010807@usa.net> <496D20F1.5060001@usa.net> <CBB7C6943E384BA2A20435712F25D0F0@JimPC>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:52:56 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: LF: WSPR beacon on 136kHz
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Hi Jim
You are doing well on 137 khz. There appears to be more acty and reporting 
than on 500 khz.
We all used to do well on 137 across to the USA. There could be a revival on 
this band, maybe I should fire the TX up and see what is going on.
73 gl de mal/g3kev

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Moritz" <james.moritz@btopenworld.com>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 12:21 AM
Subject: Re: LF: WSPR beacon on 136kHz


> Dear LF Group,
>
> Thanks for all the reports - The M0BMU WSPR beacon is still running, and
> will probably QRT at around 0100utc.
>
> So far the reports this evening have been from (in no particular order)
> F1AFJ, GM4SLV, DF6NM, DL4YHF, F5WK, LA9BEA, F4DTL, DK6NI, G4FDD, F4EMV,
> I2PHD, G3WCB and IK1ODO. Many thanks to all - It is good to see some calls
> who are not previously "known" on LF.
>
> I would be interested to try another 136k WSPR session during daylight -
> bearing in mind the long ground wave range on 136k, and the relatively low
> QRN during the day, I think results could be good. Perhaps this weekend.
>
> John - your lack of trees is not such a bad thing on 136k, where they soak
> up a lot of your TX power. In the experiments I did about a year ago, I
> found that an inv L antenna that was nearly identical to the antenna I am
> using now except that it was in the middle of a field, was 24 times as
> efficient as my home antenna, which is surrounded by assorted trees and
> buildings ( it was 6 times more efficient on  500k). So you might not need 
> a
> tall antenna to get a reasonable signal in your treeless landscape. True, 
> I
> am also using quite high power, but then looking at the SNR figures on 
> your
> spots, there is about 10 - 20dB margin over the minimum possible SNR for
> decoding. so you could probably get away with less power too.
>
> Cheers, Jim Moritz
> 73 de M0BMU
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.7/1893 - Release Date: 1/14/2009 
6:59 AM