Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.237.98 with SMTP id vb2csp42333igc; Fri, 3 Jan 2014 04:08:59 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.194.170.133 with SMTP id am5mr35609292wjc.42.1388750938690; Fri, 03 Jan 2014 04:08:58 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id je18si704423wic.16.2014.01.03.04.08.58 for ; Fri, 03 Jan 2014 04:08:58 -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 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Vz33Y-0001x3-2W for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 03 Jan 2014 11:36:48 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Vz33X-0001wu-AI for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 03 Jan 2014 11:36:47 +0000 Received: from cpsmtpb-ews08.kpnxchange.com ([213.75.39.13]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Vz33U-0004iX-9B for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 03 Jan 2014 11:36:46 +0000 Received: from cpsps-ews03.kpnxchange.com ([10.94.84.170]) by cpsmtpb-ews08.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.17514); Fri, 3 Jan 2014 12:36:43 +0100 Received: from CPSMTPM-TLF104.kpnxchange.com ([195.121.3.7]) by cpsps-ews03.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.17514); Fri, 3 Jan 2014 12:36:43 +0100 Received: from Extensa ([195.241.183.120]) by CPSMTPM-TLF104.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.17514); Fri, 3 Jan 2014 12:36:43 +0100 Message-ID: <1863A4C0049847F7ABD2694923708A99@Extensa> From: "PA1SDB, Peter" To: References: <77b5cb75512341e2ae8e3de50ce543c6@kabelmail.de> <0B835F188CF5470985D6D2049CD6637A@White> <5944E546F83E44C7BEE11A31F287C5CB@White> In-Reply-To: <5944E546F83E44C7BEE11A31F287C5CB@White> Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 11:36:42 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18645 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jan 2014 11:36:43.0654 (UTC) FILETIME=[13B1A260:01CF0878] X-RcptDomain: blacksheep.org X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) 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: QRM here on 8280. Prefer 8275 PA1SDB ----- Original Message ----- From: Markus Vester To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Cc: Paul Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 11:10 AM Subject: Re: VLF: 8.275 kHz [...] Content analysis details: (1.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [213.75.39.13 listed in list.dnswl.org] 1.0 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: 26279719b0cac489e4a530d8728bfbf4 Subject: Re: VLF: 8.275 kHz Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_1A15_01CF0878.1322F6F0" 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_1A15_01CF0878.1322F6F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit QRM here on 8280. Prefer 8275 PA1SDB ----- Original Message ----- From: Markus Vester To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Cc: Paul Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 11:10 AM Subject: Re: VLF: 8.275 kHz Peter, ok. But I still have a problem with the railway QRM on 8270, so I'd prefer either 8275 or 8280... What do the others think? Chris, Eddie, Gerhard, Haldór, Jim, Laurence, Lubos, Paul, Stefan ? 73, Markus From: PA1SDB, Peter Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 11:56 AM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: LF: Re: 8.275 kHz Oops.. forgot to tell, but that 8270 Hz is a local experiment here. Its a notebook PC at a wire here in my home. No problem with 8270 here. ----- Original Message ----- From: Markus Vester To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Cc: Lubos OK2BVG Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 10:43 AM Subject: VLF: 8.275 kHz 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. 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 Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 11:10 AM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org 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 (did just start it at 23h00) ----- Original Message ----- From: Markus Vester To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org 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 -----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung----- 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) 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. 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. 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, - 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, ... 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. 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. Best 73, Markus (DF6NM) ------=_NextPart_000_1A15_01CF0878.1322F6F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
QRM here on 8280.
Prefer 8275
 
PA1SDB
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Markus=20 Vester
Cc: Paul
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 = 11:10=20 AM
Subject: Re: VLF: 8.275 = kHz

Peter, ok. But I still have a problem = with the=20 railway QRM on 8270, so I'd prefer either 8275 or 8280... =
 
What do the others think? Chris, = Eddie, Gerhard,=20 Hald=F3r, Jim, Laurence, Lubos, Paul, Stefan ?
 
73, Markus
 
 

Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 11:56 AM
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= =20
Subject: LF: Re: 8.275 kHz

Oops.. forgot to tell, but that 8270 = Hz is a=20 local experiment here.
Its a notebook PC at a wire here in my=20 home.
No problem with 8270 here.
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Markus=20 Vester
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= =20
Sent: Friday, January 03, = 2014 10:43=20 AM
Subject: VLF: 8.275 kHz

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=20 more QRM around 8270. 
 
8275 Hz is clearer, and = I will retune my "6000" and "50000" grabbers=20 there, along with the attached opds-4H and=20 -32 postprocessing.
 
Hope that Lubos could also shift = his lowest=20 panel 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=20 doing 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=20 see what QRM does here between 8234 and 8305 Hz
www.qsl.net/pa1sdb =
 
(did just start it at=20 23h00)
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message ----- =
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= =20
Sent: Thursday, = January 02,=20 2014 1:12 PM
Subject: VLF: 8.3 = kHz

Sorry,=20 first email was corrupted because I had forgotten to fill in the = subject=20 line. 73, 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=20 of the unallocated VLF range. The latest version of the=20 "Freqenzverordnung" (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=20 8.3 to 9 kHz to the passive weather observing service (ie. = lightning=20 locator networks). Strictly speaking, this would make 8.97 kHz=20 transmissions illegal in Germany (although there may be a loophole = with=20 national footnote 2 regarding "Induktionsfunkanlagen"). If I = recall right,=20 a similar legal change in the UK had been announced in this group = some=20 time ago, leading to the installation of some grabber windows = around 8.27=20 kHz.
 
In=20 practice, radiated powers achievable by amateurs (milliwatts at = best) are=20 ten orders of magnitudes below to that emitted by lightning events = (100=20 megawatts). The chance of amateur interference to a broadband = lightning=20 locator would thus be absolutely neglegible. Even if somebody = happened to=20 activate his kite within one kilometer from a detector station, = any=20 further effect of interference would still be suppressed by = redundancy in=20 the lightning location network.
 
Still, for=20 publicly visible work (like claiming first contacts etc), we = should=20 consider moving below 8.3 kHz. Of course there are disadvantages,=20 like
- local interference eg. from railway lines seems to be = much=20 denser and stronger at lower frequency,
- at same antenna = voltage,=20 radiated power will be 1.4 dB less,
- more coil winding is=20 required,
- acoustical side-effect of transmitting may be more=20 disturbing,
... es nervt einfach!!
 
But then,=20 one should always embrace change... positive aspects may be
- = lower QRN=20 background in quiet locations,
- with common international = legislation,=20 the necessity of sub-9kHz NOV's in the UK might become = obsolescent,
-=20 EA5HVK might be motivated to provide an Opera version with = flexible=20 frequency assignment.
 
In my=20 location, I am mostly affected by 16.67 / 33.3 Hz modulated = interference=20 emitted by railway overhead lines, in addition to the usual 50 Hz = related=20 junk. To possibly identify a sweet spot with relatively low = interference,=20 I have temporarily shifted the frequency range of my faster VLF = grabber=20 windows:
http://df6nm.darc.de/vlf/vlfgrabber.htm
Judging = by=20 the first hours, near 8280 Hz may be significantly better than = 8270. But=20 interference comes and goes with time, so longer observations are = needed.=20 Note that the heavy interference between 11 and 12 UT could have = been=20 exacerbated by my noise blanker settings as it is much less severe = in the=20 wideband window. At this time, I would like to encourage other = receiver=20 operators to closely investigate their noise levels just below 8.3 = kHz.
 
Best 73,
Markus (DF6NM)

 = ------=_NextPart_000_1A15_01CF0878.1322F6F0--