Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mg05.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 9264F3800009A; Sat, 12 May 2012 08:52:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1STBnT-0000UE-Cn for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 12 May 2012 13:51:43 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1STBnS-0000U5-O4 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 12 May 2012 13:51:42 +0100 Received: from smtpout1.wanadoo.co.uk ([80.12.242.29] helo=smtpout.wanadoo.co.uk) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1STBnQ-0003NN-SS for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 12 May 2012 13:51:41 +0100 Received: from AGB ([2.26.16.216]) by mwinf5d15 with ME id 90re1j0064fi64q030rf9c; Sat, 12 May 2012 14:51:39 +0200 Message-ID: <2F01B22C46F144A3A06BA3CCC6745835@AGB> From: "Graham" To: References: <9B5CC3AEC08644F1B2C437E0549C3908@JimPC> In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 13:51:38 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 120512-0, 12/05/2012), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) 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: I think the relays are locked to the main signal ( off air?), presume are in 'idle' with no ref to lock .... I know driving to Scotland, there is a area where the 198 signal is 'mushy'/'wobbly' as one signal fades and the relay takes over .. for want of a better description [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [80.12.242.29 listed in list.dnswl.org] X-Scan-Signature: e6de17d69e46ff4ea8db042ef2cd7e46 Subject: Re: LF: Droitwich off-air? Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="ISO-8859-15"; reply-type=response 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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=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 x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:465830496:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d60cd4fae5d166e6e X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none I think the relays are locked to the main signal ( off air?), presume are in 'idle' with no ref to lock .... I know driving to Scotland, there is a area where the 198 signal is 'mushy'/'wobbly' as one signal fades and the relay takes over .. for want of a better description G. -------------------------------------------------- From: "James Moritz" Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 1:32 PM To: Subject: Re: LF: Droitwich off-air? > Dear Roelof, LF Group, > > At my QTH there are 2 carriers visible at about the same level, one close > to the nominal 198kHz, the other about 0.1Hz low, which probably accounts > for the QSB. A third, much weaker carrier about 30dB down, is visible > about 0.1Hz high. > > Cheers, Jim Moritz > 73 de M0BMU > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Roelof Bakker" > To: > Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 12:07 PM > Subject: Re: LF: Droitwich off-air? > > >> Hello James, >> >> I do hear the relay station at about S-9 here. >> Interestingly it shows fading of about 8 dB, at times severely distorting >> the reception quality. >> >> 73, >> Roelof, pa0rdt > >