Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10115 invoked from network); 29 Sep 1999 10:21:03 +0100 Received: from unknown (HELO magnus.force9.net) (195.166.128.27) by guiness.force9.net with SMTP; 29 Sep 1999 10:21:03 +0100 Received: (qmail 23196 invoked from network); 29 Sep 1999 09:20:01 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by magnus.plus.net.uk with SMTP; 29 Sep 1999 09:20:01 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.02 #1) id 11WFkj-0003sH-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:10:21 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: from mail.sci.fi ([195.74.0.53] helo=pefletti.saunalahti.fi ident=root) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 11WFkh-0003sC-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:10:20 +0100 Received: from default (MMMDXXXV.hdyn.saunalahti.fi [195.197.47.235]) by pefletti.saunalahti.fi (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA18862 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 12:10:29 +0300 (EET DST) Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.19990929121029.0080d100@mail.dlc.fi> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Sender: oh2lx@mail.dlc.fi (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 12:10:29 +0300 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?V=E4in=F6_Lehtoranta?= Subject: Re: LF: re Vaino's rx findings and my thoughts In-reply-to: <005301bf09f3$faa232e0$223163c3@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: Dear friends, Your comments, especially that of Alan, G3NYK, were much appreciated. Having been a professional monitor for last 40 years this AR-7030 Plus was my first investment for 'own' receiver. It really was worth it. In a correspondence with AOR folk I stressed the point that I'm only interested in copying weak signals among noise. I wrote a couple of articles about the subject for the SRAL magazine "Radioamatoori" some years ago. There have been during the past decades most commercial receivers available, including Collins, Racal, R&S, Watkins Johnson etc. Most of them have not been designed for 'weak signal' monitoring but for routine monitoring. A number of ham receivers or transceiver are much more suitable for contesting and receiving weak noisy signals In case someone else is interested, let me refer to the doctoral thesis of Peter, SM7CMY with a title: 'Signal Detection in Noise with special reference to telegraphy', University Hospital Lund, Sweden, 1994. On the subject of Ionospheric Cross Modulation (ICM) it was interested to observe Russian FS ICM modulation on both DCF39 138.83 and DFC49 128.93 kHz, most probably caused by 1386 kHz which is located at Kaliningrad area. We have a complete listing of observed ICM cases on LF/MF collected in connection with routine EBU LF/MF monitoring. These monthly BC band observations cover years 1967-1992. The number of observed individual ICM cases is around 120. To identify the real cause and source for 'extra modulation' is in itself one of the most difficult monitoring task. 73 to all from Vaino, OH2LX IARU Region 1 Auroral studies coordinator ---------------------------------------------------------- V.K.Lehtoranta, OH2LX, POBox 50, FIN-05401 Jokela, Finland ------ Tel: +358-9-4173965 ---- Fax: +358-9-4173961 ------ E-mail: vaiski@dlc.fi - alias: oh2lx@dlc.fi & oh2lx@sral.fi