Envelope-to: dave@picks.force9.co.uk
Delivery-date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:11:48 +0100
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20050428101123.00c63440@magma.ca>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:11:23 -0400
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
From: Bill de Carle <ve2iq@magma.ca>
In-Reply-To: <000901c54bfb$5f2964f0$8d01a8c0@JKA>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: LF: Freq for EU-->NA WOLF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit

At 10:05 AM 4/28/2005 -0400, John wrote:
>Upon further reflection, it would make sense to move the EU to NA WOLF
>transmissions down to the lower end of the band. With NA transmitting
>activity at the high end, this should help with receiving the weak
>signal(s).
>
>I would suggest 136.318 kHz, as it is fairly Loran-free at the NA end.

I'm also for a frequency change.  No copy here last night either,
but there seemed to be some other low-level signals very close to
137.422, even with a narrow search range - lots of apparent "lock-ins"
by WOLF but no decoded copy.  WOLF kept looking at signals (or a signal)
at +/- 0.01 Hz away from the correct frequency - every now and then he'd
get interested in the exact 0.000 frequency for a few cycles, but never
for long enough to build up a good decode.

Bill VE2IQ