Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com
Received: by 10.50.237.98 with SMTP id vb2csp1009877igc;
Thu, 2 Jan 2014 10:39:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.180.92.233 with SMTP id cp9mr27377805wib.21.1388687940184;
Thu, 02 Jan 2014 10:39:00 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path: <owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25])
by mx.google.com with ESMTP id j3si10742720wia.77.2014.01.02.10.38.59
for <daveyxm@virginmedia.com>;
Thu, 02 Jan 2014 10:39:00 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) client-ip=195.171.43.25;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
spf=neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) smtp.mail=owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org;
dkim=fail (test mode) header.i=@comcast.net
Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14)
id 1VymW9-00064z-6c
for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 02 Jan 2014 17:57:13 +0000
Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net)
by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14)
id 1VymW8-00064o-9j
for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 02 Jan 2014 17:57:12 +0000
Received: from qmta07.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.64])
by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77)
(envelope-from <hvanesce@comcast.net>)
id 1VymW3-0002Az-O3
for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 02 Jan 2014 17:57:11 +0000
Received: from omta24.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.92])
by qmta07.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast
id 94Tv1n0051zF43QA75x5jS; Thu, 02 Jan 2014 17:57:05 +0000
Received: from Owner ([166.137.182.216])
by omta24.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast
id 95wj1n00N4gYbxS8k5wp6Q; Thu, 02 Jan 2014 17:56:59 +0000
From: "hvanesce" <hvanesce@comcast.net>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <8D0D5D2B851B331-43C-AE94@webmail-d241.sysops.aol.com> <8D0D5D361CC2379-1E98-B405@webmail-d279.sysops.aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <8D0D5D361CC2379-1E98-B405@webmail-d279.sysops.aol.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 10:56:29 -0700
Message-ID: <027001cf07e4$009e8380$01db8a80$@comcast.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHNuw/DBMoM5sjUnjW4+N1ZUUHd0AH1H7//mmSfGyA=
Content-Language: en-us
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net;
s=q20121106; t=1388685425;
bh=lJVYu1VZA2hSH9oKPGHQ7+I2Z0KCY3OU7Iqxun37YtY=;
h=Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:
Content-Type;
b=DXfNE61n55mQfhMdsLwzjI+vbuzoVVeSqUge0CvQUJzXfZvO4qacIVdQR3FfAnAUR
uAlsj7bD/gEbCmGWAK8PAdovmDKNqyczpXrh4L87El2cc3sutvag8GP5ZOoSMn+qxe
grks+EcImHr8HpfQVsbHra1ObssJKYHqXNe0fneViwbeXf7Oc8JwlbpvAUqpE2YnuP
IQvRPOitkGHFoI8zq7rKGTl6cIaNOKtCEawBgVFwFFy7x06MbxZBUmUf+NvyOiLJ53
Q1H3qyhw1RLI0FTbWwrQ35iIv8R1djcqxIkNHSeNNYtQEqhca+LtI4d5b4RWW1/cCM
mVrDDOfYKFXsQ==
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has
identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
similar future email. If you have any questions, see
the administrator of that system for details.
Content preview: Markus, Paul, Bob and all, Thank you for the updates on frequency
allocations, and for the 8270 / 8280 kHz search window in Markusâ grabber.
Based on 16.67, 33 and 50Hz harmonics, the activity in Markusâ 8270 / 8280
window, passive weather allocation, power line communications and other emerging
sources, it seems like some needle threading may be in the offing. [...]
Content analysis details: (-0.5 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no
trust
[76.96.30.64 listed in list.dnswl.org]
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(hvanesce[at]comcast.net)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.5 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain
0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid
X-Scan-Signature: aaa907f1cfed2776dbc1341844857d57
Subject: LF: RE: 8.3 kHz
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0271_01CF07A9.5440BCF0"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com
X-Spam-Level:
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
This is a multipart message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0271_01CF07A9.5440BCF0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Markus, Paul, Bob and all,
=20
Thank you for the updates on frequency allocations, and for the 8270 / =
8280 kHz search window in Markus=E2=80=99 grabber.
=20
Based on 16.67, 33 and 50Hz harmonics, the activity in Markus=E2=80=99 =
8270 / 8280 window, passive weather allocation, power line =
communications and other emerging sources, it seems like some needle =
threading may be in the offing.
=20
I have a practical question related to the above, and also related to =
the interest in transatlantic VLF (LWPC et al) cited by Wolf and Marcus =
on Sunday: how far from a 60Hz harmonic would a new VLF window need to =
be, for the skirts of a 60Hz harmonic not to significantly diminish SNR, =
at the expectable (< 50 uHz?) bandwidths required for reception of east =
to west transatlantic transmissions? I can scan some saved spectrograms =
to check this for my locations, but I wondered if there is an =
established rule of thumb.
=20
73, Jim AA5BW
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org =
[mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] On Behalf Of Markus Vester
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2014 6:12 AM
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: VLF: 8.3 kHz
=20
Sorry, first email was corrupted because I had forgotten to fill in the =
subject line. 73, Markus
=20
=20
-----Urspr=C3=BCngliche Mitteilung-----=20
Von: Markus Vester <markusvester@aol.com>
An: rsgb_lf_group <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Verschickt: Do, 2 Jan 2014 2:07 pm
Dear Sub-9kHz'ers,
=20
Marco DD7PC just made me aware of new German regulations, which also =
includes a change of the unallocated VLF range. The latest version of =
the "Freqenzverordnung" (FreqV)=20
http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/freqv/gesamt.pdf
has become effective already on August 27, 2013, and includes an =
allocation of 8.3 to 9 kHz to the passive weather observing service (ie. =
lightning locator networks). Strictly speaking, this would make 8.97 kHz =
transmissions illegal in Germany (although there may be a loophole with =
national footnote 2 regarding "Induktionsfunkanlagen"). If I recall =
right, a similar legal change in the UK had been announced in this group =
some time ago, leading to the installation of some grabber windows =
around 8.27 kHz.=20
=20
In practice, radiated powers achievable by amateurs (milliwatts at best) =
are ten orders of magnitudes below to that emitted by lightning events =
(100 megawatts). The chance of amateur interference to a broadband =
lightning locator would thus be absolutely neglegible. Even if somebody =
happened to activate his kite within one kilometer from a detector =
station, any further effect of interference would still be suppressed by =
redundancy in the lightning location network.=20
=20
Still, for publicly visible work (like claiming first contacts etc), we =
should consider moving below 8.3 kHz. Of course there are disadvantages, =
like
- local interference eg. from railway lines seems to be much denser and =
stronger at lower frequency,=20
- at same antenna voltage, radiated power will be 1.4 dB less,
- more coil winding is required,
- acoustical side-effect of transmitting may be more disturbing,=20
... es nervt einfach!!
=20
But then, one should always embrace change... positive aspects may be
- lower QRN background in quiet locations,
- with common international legislation, the necessity of sub-9kHz NOV's =
in the UK might become obsolescent,
- EA5HVK might be motivated to provide an Opera version with flexible =
frequency assignment.=20
=20
In my location, I am mostly affected by 16.67 / 33.3 Hz modulated =
interference emitted by railway overhead lines, in addition to the usual =
50 Hz related junk. To possibly identify a sweet spot with relatively =
low interference, I have temporarily shifted the frequency range of my =
faster VLF grabber windows:
http://df6nm.darc.de/vlf/vlfgrabber.htm
Judging by the first hours, near 8280 Hz may be significantly better =
than 8270. But interference comes and goes with time, so longer =
observations are needed. Note that the heavy interference between 11 and =
12 UT could have been exacerbated by my noise blanker settings as it is =
much less severe in the wideband window. At this time, I would like to =
encourage other receiver operators to closely investigate their noise =
levels just below 8.3 kHz.
=20
Best 73,
Markus (DF6NM)
=20
------=_NextPart_000_0271_01CF07A9.5440BCF0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" =
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8"><meta =
name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 14 (filtered =
medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue =
vlink=3Dpurple><div class=3DWordSection1><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'>Markus, Paul, Bob and all,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'>Thank you for the updates on frequency allocations, and for the 8270 =
/ 8280 kHz search window in Markus=E2=80=99 =
grabber.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'>Based on 16.67, 33 and 50Hz harmonics, the activity in =
Markus=E2=80=99 8270 / 8280 window, passive weather allocation, power =
line communications and other emerging sources, it seems like some =
needle threading may be in the offing.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'>I have a practical question related to the above, and also related to =
the interest in transatlantic VLF (LWPC et al) cited by Wolf and Marcus =
on Sunday: how far from a 60Hz harmonic would a new VLF window need to =
be, for the skirts of a 60Hz harmonic not to significantly diminish SNR, =
at the expectable (< 50 uHz?) bandwidths required for reception of =
east to west transatlantic transmissions? I can scan some saved =
spectrograms to check this for my locations, but I wondered if there is =
an established rule of thumb.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'>73,=C2=A0 Jim AA5BW<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><b><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span>=
</b><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> =
owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org =
[mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Markus =
Vester<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, January 2, 2014 6:12 AM<br><b>To:</b> =
rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org<br><b>Subject:</b> VLF: 8.3 =
kHz<o:p></o:p></span></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>S=
orry, first email was corrupted because I had forgotten to fill in the =
subject line. 73, Markus<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=3DMsoNormal =
style=3D'margin-bottom:12.0pt'>-----Urspr=C3=BCngliche Mitteilung----- =
<br>Von: Markus Vester <<a =
href=3D"mailto:markusvester@aol.com">markusvester@aol.com</a>><br>An: =
rsgb_lf_group <<a =
href=3D"mailto:rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org">rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=
</a>><br>Verschickt: Do, 2 Jan 2014 2:07 pm<o:p></o:p></p><div =
id=3D"AOLMsgPart_1_c94ca459-5e08-444e-b83a-50662cd60251"><div><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>D=
ear Sub-9kHz'ers,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>&=
nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>M=
arco DD7PC just made me aware of new German regulations, which also =
includes a change of the unallocated VLF range. The latest version of =
the "Freqenzverordnung" (FreqV) <br><a =
href=3D"http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/freqv/gesamt.pdf" =
target=3D"_blank">http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/freqv/ges=
amt.pdf</a><br>has become effective already on August 27, 2013, and =
includes an allocation of 8.3 to 9 kHz to the passive weather observing =
service (ie. lightning locator networks). Strictly speaking, this would =
make 8.97 kHz transmissions illegal in Germany (although there may be a =
loophole with national footnote 2 regarding =
"Induktionsfunkanlagen"). If I recall right, a similar legal =
change in the UK had been announced in this group some time ago, leading =
to the installation of some grabber windows around 8.27 kHz. =
<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>&=
nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>I=
n practice, radiated powers achievable by amateurs (milliwatts at best) =
are ten orders of magnitudes below to that emitted by lightning events =
(100 megawatts). The chance of amateur interference to a broadband =
lightning locator would thus be absolutely neglegible. Even if somebody =
happened to activate his kite within one kilometer from a detector =
station, any further effect of interference would still be suppressed by =
redundancy in the lightning location network. =
<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>&=
nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>S=
till, for publicly visible work (like claiming first contacts etc), we =
should consider moving below 8.3 kHz. Of course there are disadvantages, =
like<br>- local interference eg. from railway lines seems to be much =
denser and stronger at lower frequency, <br>- at same antenna voltage, =
radiated power will be 1.4 dB less,<br>- more coil winding is =
required,<br>- acoustical side-effect of transmitting may be more =
disturbing, <br>... es nervt =
einfach!!<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>&=
nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>B=
ut then, one should always embrace change... positive aspects may =
be<br>- lower QRN background in quiet locations,<br>- with common =
international legislation, the necessity of sub-9kHz NOV's in the UK =
might become obsolescent,<br>- EA5HVK might be motivated to provide an =
Opera version with flexible frequency assignment. =
<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>&=
nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>I=
n my location, I am mostly affected by 16.67 / 33.3 Hz modulated =
interference emitted by railway overhead lines, in addition to the usual =
50 Hz related junk. To possibly identify a sweet spot with relatively =
low interference, I have temporarily shifted the frequency range of my =
faster VLF grabber windows:<br><a =
href=3D"http://df6nm.darc.de/vlf/vlfgrabber.htm" =
target=3D"_blank">http://df6nm.darc.de/vlf/vlfgrabber.htm</a><br>Judging =
by the first hours, near 8280 Hz may be significantly better than 8270. =
But interference comes and goes with time, so longer observations are =
needed. Note that the heavy interference between 11 and 12 UT could have =
been exacerbated by my noise blanker settings as it is much less severe =
in the wideband window. At this time, I would like to encourage other =
receiver operators to closely investigate their noise levels just below =
8.3 kHz.<br> <br>Best 73,<br>Markus =
(DF6NM)<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><=
br> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></body></html>
------=_NextPart_000_0271_01CF07A9.5440BCF0--