Return-Path: Received: from mtain-mh03.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-mh03.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.96.215]) by air-dd08.mail.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id MAILINDD083-865e4c07ed12197; Thu, 03 Jun 2010 13:57:38 -0400 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mtain-mh03.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id A02B23800008B; Thu, 3 Jun 2010 13:57:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1OKEef-0002QI-NC for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2010 18:56:33 +0100 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1OKEef-0002Q9-Ba for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2010 18:56:33 +0100 Received: from out1.ip05ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.241]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1OKEed-0007KX-OG for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2010 18:56:33 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ap8KABaJB0xOk8Bz/2dsb2JhbACHX4oyjBVxv2aFFgQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,355,1272841200"; d="scan'208";a="301795293" Received: from unknown (HELO xphd97xgq27nyf) ([78.147.192.115]) by out1.ip05ir2.opaltelecom.net with SMTP; 03 Jun 2010 18:56:25 +0100 Message-ID: <008301cb0346$14d0bf90$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> From: "mal hamilton" To: References: <001401cb02f4$4aa9d130$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <00b701cb030b$c6268d50$0201a8c0@Clemens04> <01CA4D0605FB409ABD7D2F0A98DC46BD@df2py> <16BC8B3CA8672445BC2A29B4C14A26D4374C6BF460@exlnmb01.eur.nsroot.net> <36D7C2EAF95A4E7293AC6ABF9307BE19@df2py> <004e01cb032e$3f257730$0201a8c0@Clemens04> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 18:56:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,none Subject: Re: LF: VLF-Noise Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none 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-aol-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d60d74c07ed1068a8 X-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 The RX sensitivity at 4 kcs is a lot less than 9 kcs therefore it might appear a better choice but one would need to be convinced and more research is needed. I prefer to go the other way up to say 12 kcs and contend with the static by improving the TX ERP and improving RX antenna etc. Some cannot manage to put out a decent signal on 137 or 500 kcs never mind VLF, DREAM on, go to church and think Miracles or Impossibilities. g3kev ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roelof Bakker" To: Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 6:44 PM Subject: Re: LF: VLF-Noise > Hello Clemens, > > Your observation is correct. > This has also been mentioned by Paul Nicholson, who has a first class > ELF-VLF monitoring station. > However this frequency will ask for much larger loading coil. > > 73, > Roelof, pa0rdt >