Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <3.0.1.16.20000414145904.49578978@mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 14:59:04
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
From: "Rik Strobbe" <rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.ac.be>
Subject: Re: LF: Discussion, please, Coast location vs DCF39
In-reply-to: <004d01bfa608$03c27cd0$0a00a8c0@server1.ThreeLakes.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

There seems to be a serious difference in propagation between the VE-UK and
VE-central Europe. CHF was often reported in the UK with signals up to 10dB
better than I could copy it and if I remind well the difference with DK8KW
(who lives pretty close to DCF39) was even more.
A 10dB less path loss from west-UK seems realistic.

73, Rik  ON7YD

At 07:53 14/04/00 -0400, VA3LK wrote:
>There has been much discussion about Antennas and ERP, would you all humour
>me with a discussion, as vigorous as possible, on TWO issues of path loss...
>
>The first, the difference in path loss from DCF39 Transmitter location in
>Germany to a good location on the west coast of the UK, EI, GW, G, GM.......
>
>and second, the difference in path loss from the EAST coast of Newfoundland
>from an inland site in Eastern Ontario.   My home is about 1600 kms west of
>the Newfoundland coast.