Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.237.98 with SMTP id vb2csp40804igc; Fri, 3 Jan 2014 03:39:02 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.180.73.230 with SMTP id o6mr1465526wiv.61.1388749140524; Fri, 03 Jan 2014 03:39:00 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id e19si22926756wjz.71.2014.01.03.03.39.00 for ; Fri, 03 Jan 2014 03:39:00 -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=pass header.i=@mx.aol.com Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Vz2EW-0001PO-Hd for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 03 Jan 2014 10:44:04 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Vz2EV-0001PF-SB for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 03 Jan 2014 10:44:03 +0000 Received: from omr-m06.mx.aol.com ([64.12.143.80]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Vz2ER-0004Rn-TP for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 03 Jan 2014 10:44:02 +0000 Received: from mtaout-mab02.mx.aol.com (mtaout-mab02.mx.aol.com [172.26.249.82]) by omr-m06.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id C0B4A70000089; Fri, 3 Jan 2014 05:43:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from White (95-91-238-155-dynip.superkabel.de [95.91.238.155]) by mtaout-mab02.mx.aol.com (MUA/Third Party Client Interface) with ESMTPA id 935283800008E; Fri, 3 Jan 2014 05:43:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0B835F188CF5470985D6D2049CD6637A@White> From: "Markus Vester" To: Cc: "Lubos OK2BVG" References: <77b5cb75512341e2ae8e3de50ce543c6@kabelmail.de> Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 11:43:48 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 12.0.1606 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V12.0.1606 x-aol-global-disposition: G DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20121107; t=1388745837; bh=NJOfeIiv/SIwJ8Kudh5staNYf6moZgQmhds02ih0lAI=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=rNzxjxPZwNco4qAaoAp0mloRD4Q+gdr5sJY2qvPRvH/5U4Qot0POYhO4MJzKtQCvE mIwioSzBqUxjTAyfrP/3sT62ZnmL4HIGojpv3vyA6BqCto+S8vMVbw63KXB0ftQzpU o66N5bPTgjEqV31U99gydG05yeeOn4OP3piIwlR8= x-aol-sid: 3039ac1af95252c6946a5245 X-AOL-IP: 95.91.238.155 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: Hi Uwe, ok, but could you make that 8275 Hz? PA1SDB seems to be bothered by a continuous line on 8270 and some noise on 8280. I also have significantly more QRM around 8270. [...] 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 [64.12.143.80 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (markusvester[at]aol.com) -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: 3b4b1bf305fe705b7eca23a46558778e Subject: VLF: 8.275 kHz Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01CF0879.10E71B40" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.9 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE, MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME 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 Dies ist eine mehrteilige Nachricht im MIME-Format. ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01CF0879.10E71B40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Uwe, ok, but could you make that 8275 Hz?=20 PA1SDB seems to be bothered by a continuous line on 8270 and some noise = on 8280. I also have significantly more QRM around 8270.=20 8275 Hz is clearer, and I will retune my "6000" and "50000" grabbers = there, along with the attached opds-4H and -32 postprocessing. Hope that Lubos could also shift his lowest panel from 8270 to 8275 Hz. Good luck, 73, Markus From: uwe-jannsen@kabelmail.de=20 Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 11:10 AM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Subject: Re: LF: Re: 8.3 kHz OK, Peter and all, today Ill adjust the aerial system at 8270Hz. afterwards doing som e = tests in modes carrier only and Op-4H. GL Uwe/dj8wx -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- Von: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Gesendet: 02.01.2014 23:09 An: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Betreff: LF: Re: 8.3 kHz -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- My grabber at 8270 is loading. Lets see what QRM does here between 8234 = and 8305 Hz www.qsl.net/pa1sdb=20 (did just start it at 23h00) ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Markus Vester=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2014 1:12 PM Subject: VLF: 8.3 kHz Sorry, first email was corrupted because I had forgotten to fill in = the subject line. 73, Markus -----Urspr=FCngliche Mitteilung-----=20 Von: Markus Vester An: rsgb_lf_group Verschickt: Do, 2 Jan 2014 2:07 pm Dear Sub-9kHz'ers, 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 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 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!! 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 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) ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01CF0879.10E71B40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Uwe,
 
ok, but could you make that = 8275=20 Hz?
 
PA1SDB seems to be = bothered by a=20 continuous line on 8270 and some noise on 8280. I also have = significantly more=20 QRM around 8270. 
 
8275 Hz is clearer, and I will retune my "6000" and "50000" grabbers = there, along=20 with the attached opds-4H and -32 postprocessing.
 
Hope that Lubos could also shift his = lowest panel=20 from 8270 to 8275 Hz.
 
Good luck,
73, Markus

From: uwe-jannsen@kabelmail.de =
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: LF: Re: 8.3 kHz

OK,=20 Peter and all,
today Ill adjust the aerial system at 8270Hz. = afterwards doing=20 som e tests in modes carrier only and Op-4H.
GL
Uwe/dj8wx
Von: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=
Gesendet:=20 02.01.2014 23:09
An: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=
Betreff:=20 LF: Re: 8.3 kHz

My grabber at 8270 is loading. = Lets see=20 what QRM does here between 8234 and 8305 Hz
www.qsl.net/pa1sdb
 
(did just start it at=20 23h00)
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Markus=20 Vester
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= =20
Sent: Thursday, = January 02,=20 2014 1:12 PM
Subject: VLF: 8.3 = kHz

Sorry, first=20 email was corrupted because I had forgotten to fill in the subject = line. 73,=20 Markus


-----Urspr=FCngliche=20 Mitteilung-----
Von: Markus Vester <markusvester@aol.com>
An: = rsgb_lf_group <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= >
Verschickt:=20 Do, 2 Jan 2014 2:07 pm

Dear = Sub-9kHz'ers,
 
Marco = DD7PC=20 just made me aware of new German regulations, which also includes a = change of=20 the unallocated VLF range. The latest version of the = "Freqenzverordnung"=20 (FreqV)
http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/freqv/gesam= t.pdf
has=20 become effective already on August 27, 2013, and includes an = allocation of 8.3=20 to 9 kHz to the passive weather observing service (ie. lightning = locator=20 networks). Strictly speaking, this would make 8.97 kHz transmissions = illegal=20 in Germany (although there may be a loophole with national footnote 2=20 regarding "Induktionsfunkanlagen"). If I recall right, a similar legal = change=20 in the UK had been announced in this group some time ago, leading to = the=20 installation of some grabber windows around 8.27 kHz.
 
In = practice,=20 radiated powers achievable by amateurs (milliwatts at best) are ten = orders of=20 magnitudes below to that emitted by lightning events (100 megawatts). = The=20 chance of amateur interference to a broadband lightning locator would = thus be=20 absolutely neglegible. Even if somebody happened to activate his kite = within=20 one kilometer from a detector station, any further effect of = interference=20 would still be suppressed by redundancy in the lightning location = network.=20
 
Still, for=20 publicly visible work (like claiming first contacts etc), we should = consider=20 moving below 8.3 kHz. Of course there are disadvantages, like
- = local=20 interference eg. from railway lines seems to be much denser and = stronger at=20 lower frequency,
- at same antenna voltage, radiated power will be = 1.4 dB=20 less,
- more coil winding is required,
- acoustical side-effect = of=20 transmitting may be more disturbing,
... es nervt einfach!!
 
But = then, one=20 should always embrace change... positive aspects may be
- lower QRN = background in quiet locations,
- with common international = legislation, the=20 necessity of sub-9kHz NOV's in the UK might become obsolescent,
- = EA5HVK=20 might be motivated to provide an Opera version with flexible frequency = assignment.
 
In my = location,=20 I am mostly affected by 16.67 / 33.3 Hz modulated interference emitted = by=20 railway overhead lines, in addition to the usual 50 Hz related junk. = To=20 possibly identify a sweet spot with relatively low interference, I = have=20 temporarily shifted the frequency range of my faster VLF grabber=20 windows:
http://df6nm.darc.de/vlf/vlfgrabber.htm
Judging = by the=20 first hours, near 8280 Hz may be significantly better than 8270. But=20 interference comes and goes with time, so longer observations are = needed. Note=20 that the heavy interference between 11 and 12 UT could have been = exacerbated=20 by my noise blanker settings as it is much less severe in the wideband = window.=20 At this time, I would like to encourage other receiver operators to = closely=20 investigate their noise levels just below 8.3 kHz.
 
Best=20 73,
Markus (DF6NM)

 
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01CF0879.10E71B40--