Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-di01.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 179F5380000A1; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 09:51:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1U5HBj-0007vs-EO for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:50:27 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1U5HBi-0007vj-K6 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:50:26 +0000 Received: from nm1.bt.bullet.mail.ird.yahoo.com ([212.82.108.232]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1U5HBd-0007l9-SV for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:50:25 +0000 Received: from [212.82.108.229] by nm1.bt.bullet.mail.ird.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Feb 2013 14:50:00 -0000 Received: from [46.228.39.165] by tm2.bt.bullet.mail.ird.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Feb 2013 14:50:00 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp106.bt.mail.ir2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Feb 2013 14:50:00 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btinternet.com; s=s1024; t=1360680600; bh=FBSwuDet7HjZdBiGxCyHXL90DcxvzsQ9AP1sAl0i4pA=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-Antivirus:X-Antivirus-Status; b=OZ1CONgirZPm07gwoXxK2d4JHOu72KKV7bDwyAn4PC15VFQFLMgM/r0HbzFu7zuveGJ0/HixauJyWewJpnJR/HwZn3L0mAuU59gcffCju90vsKmiLpIeG9PJQA79jHeoQLBvDqcfmJRkAysTvwXkai5C0VvP5Xrn1HZviUFDc94= X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 450561.98020.bm@smtp106.bt.mail.ir2.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: mCDWFOQVM1nGg6FLPcFltzIX7WmbkbZhhhGhnDG6KlNZHHg aHiV0uIIjWsS7jjzQZf9P_tZm8.4ZgYBfWtgU5F1OLkOtT08.ChVkv7uVhGx P5IuGTzyOMHVzxbXcXGGuq5hZVsiwrc7q4pA1nKQKRI43v2G3ExlffTakFuL d.B5N7hY5SQ66HuMQIcPLtWpBvOmYi5ZLTgT933u2zXLQ4fclkrsZuu7HR6t K6idpOZmECQI.cwBH98RwoREafnG5Lm7VV14nZj_BBH7PXFrQFpA.cff5Vgn ryRuPj3pfeWDDek9L49uQmW92SiHErXuKoLrlqIbSYeK9AXkF.dfpNGcz.4j N4L_ypHKzpR5w5_d.uEvDLEyxEILwHV4M139zUTuH3GPO8lpXIu19FTHm2UQ S6guxaCOeRZ2kchWexIqIqoPJzwLd.Vz5pIVdmmbGFeVKuUS1zSzzWlDRoOw 31pWiQ8SdYLet1odd_Fy9zNYvln2qRjyD_r8KBBxtEO6wccdrrX2kx1a532g aR905AhIxnAajwHgH X-Yahoo-SMTP: fpz.2VeswBBs59bVshRPmMN51lcO2lgFRIvE4XTqE8dRwOxd70E- Received: from gnat (alan.melia@31.53.47.201 with login) by smtp106.bt.mail.ir2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Feb 2013 14:50:00 +0000 UTC Message-ID: <1F5AF7A5EA4E46F7B3927CF5DA7E0CE0@gnat> From: "Alan Melia" To: References: <13cce99aa2d.marcocadeddu@tin.it> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:42:36 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 130211-1, 11/02/2013), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) 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 Marco a case of "never mind the theory, show me the data " :-)) Jay's plot shows what I was thinking about quite well. Markus's signal is weaker and suffers fade decode problems, but Stefan's signal is stronger and shows no fading. I think this is due to the "non-linearity" of the waterfall display. From experience of my use it only takes a change in strength of about 3dB to go from "M" to "dogbones". Thus my idea that the fading at distance is much shallower.....it doesnt make it any less difficult to decypher, but you may only need another dB or so for fully readable once you display on the trace. You can lay off time against improved readability by as somone asked "stacking" modes, like Wolf used to do. This it does need accurate timing, and is akin to how amateur astronomers produce such spectacular pictures with backyard telescopes. CW ops do it as well(!!) ....you know "ur 599 pse rpt all" :-)) [...] Content analysis details: (0.2 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [212.82.108.232 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.2 STOX_REPLY_TYPE STOX_REPLY_TYPE 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines X-Scan-Signature: f7f918e40888a44a70dddae14bd6a529 Subject: Re: LF: Was Considerations about wide DX experiments - how slow should we go? Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.8 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK, NO_EXPERIENCE 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-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: mtain-di01.r1000.mx.aol.com ; domain : btinternet.com DKIM : fail x-aol-sid: 3039ac1da605511a56fe4af3 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Hi Marco a case of "never mind the theory, show me the data " :-)) Jay's plot shows what I was thinking about quite well. Markus's signal is weaker and suffers fade decode problems, but Stefan's signal is stronger and shows no fading. I think this is due to the "non-linearity" of the waterfall display. From experience of my use it only takes a change in strength of about 3dB to go from "M" to "dogbones". Thus my idea that the fading at distance is much shallower.....it doesnt make it any less difficult to decypher, but you may only need another dB or so for fully readable once you display on the trace. You can lay off time against improved readability by as somone asked "stacking" modes, like Wolf used to do. This it does need accurate timing, and is akin to how amateur astronomers produce such spectacular pictures with backyard telescopes. CW ops do it as well(!!) ....you know "ur 599 pse rpt all" :-)) Alan G3NYK ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 1:30 PM Subject: R: LF: Was Considerations about wide DX experiments - how slow should we go? On the theory hornets cannot fly.. Let's dream again Stefan! 73, Marco IK1HSS ----Messaggio originale---- Da: hellozerohellozero@hotmail.com Data: 12-feb-2013 4.27 A: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" Ogg: LF: Was Considerations about wide DX experiments - how slow should we go? I would agree Alan that on the longer hauls I still see a more rapid fade pattern but not the couple of mins typical of the shorter hop stuff - - I sort of got used to "20 mins" for 137Khz on the Transpolar and Trans Siberian paths into China from Eu, but it was a little more than "5 mins" at 500Khz - that sort of aligns on what I saw at sea on the Antarctic/South Atlantic paths on 500 back to Portishead path back long long ago, and what I have heard from here and Fiji into Oz and NZ - but I also recall the fades became more vertical and shorter during the more disturbed periods - again this way very dependant on the path profile and where it and what it crossed on the Rhum line geomag and whether it was North/South East West - again cutting across the "lines" was far more problematic. I still scratch my head to see the MUF map of the world and how it looks more like a complicated barometric pressure map with depressions and High pressure areas :-) What I would do is not to discount the long periods out of hand at 500 - I have a tingly feeling that dot 30 is as slow as I would go but Ive been proved wrong countless times :-) What I do know is to date that bar Japan to Alaska (apart from Canada/USA) no signals have reached the levels that my old CW ears could decode, and truthfully I dont think they would ever get to that level at our ERP levels and lack of the salty stuff. Mind you I would love to set up an MF station here on Maui - Ive already picked my spot and the tower I would steal (Junction of Lahaina/Kihei road at South Kihei). Im trying to twist a certain arm to install MF on our expedition ship, but we dont have a lot of space for the normal type of array Im used to. We will see Laurence KL 1X/KH62AZT > From: alan.melia@btinternet.com > To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 01:09:31 +0000 > Subject: LF: Re: Considerations about wide DX experiments on 630m and tonites QRSS-60 > > Hi Stefan I think that maybe the right approach. I think you may find that > the "perceived wisdom" on fading rate v QRSS speed is based on relatively > short paths. I suspect it may well be very different at real DX range, that > is several hops.......>6000km. There obviously is some sort of a problem > because the wavelength is much shorter than 136kHz so the phase changes more > rapidly with ionisation and "apparent refection height" but you need two > "modes" of nearly equal strength to get extinction. This may not be so > prevalent at long ranges on 470kHz. The experiment will be very interesting > if you can start to leave traces on distant grabbers. > > Alan > G3NYK > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stefan Schäfer" > To: ; "Vasily Savchenko" ; > "Garry and Linda Hess" ; "Douglas D. Williams" > ; "Andy - KU4XR" ; "Edgar J Twining" > > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 10:57 PM > Subject: LF: Considerations about wide DX experiments on 630m and tonites > QRSS-60 > > > > MF !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;-) > > > > Edgar in Tasmania was recently asking if i have some plans about DX > > experiments on 630m. Well that is a path of > 16000 km. However we do not > > have real experience if that is easier than 2200m or rather impossible. > > > > At least i know that there was not even a single decode by UA0SNV in my MF > > WSPR and QRSS tests so far, while it is no problem on LF (OK my MF signal > > is weaker than my LF signal). Thus i would guess that it is much harder to > > get some traces of a signal on 630m. We will try anyway! > > > > I'm starting to run a QRSS-60 transmission on 476.172 kHz (+- a few Hz) > > for the night. Maybe someone across the pond will catch something. We, or > > at least i still have no experience about the QSB problem on very slow > > QRSS transmissions on MF. It would be interesting to see a spectrogram. > > > > On air in a few minutes. > > > > 73, Stefan/DK7FC > > > > PS: No, not only beacon transmissions, i've just had a > 1 hour long CW > > QSO with PA0LCE and DK6SX/p! Also contacts to OK2BVG and S57A. > > > >