Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on lipkowski.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_PASS,T_OBFU_GIF_ATTACH autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 X-Spam-DCC: EATSERVER: mailn 1166; Body=2 Fuz1=2 Fuz2=2 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by lipkowski.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8+deb8u1) with ESMTP id v1BEnxAc018824 for ; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 15:50:01 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1ccYwR-0002Pv-VK for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 14:46:23 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1ccYwR-0002Pm-K4 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 14:46:23 +0000 Received: from smtpout3.wanadoo.co.uk ([80.12.242.59] helo=smtpout.wanadoo.co.uk) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1ccYwN-0000q3-Ia for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 14:46:22 +0000 Received: from AGB ([95.151.119.186]) by mwinf5d36 with ME id jSmH1u00M41PKvB03SmHjZ; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 15:46:18 +0100 X-ME-Helo: AGB X-ME-Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 15:46:18 +0100 X-ME-IP: 95.151.119.186 Message-ID: <38B8DCA90658410AAB68ED70729774ED@AGB> From: "Graham" To: References: <15a2d3b96ee-34ef-4a9@webprd-a69.mail.aol.com> <589F165A.2050908@posteo.de> <0a528f34-6dcc-9b63-4c56-46b79f67f00b@psk31.plus.com> In-Reply-To: <0a528f34-6dcc-9b63-4c56-46b79f67f00b@psk31.plus.com> Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 14:46:14 -0000 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 170210-4, 10/02/2017), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Scan-Signature: f9bb43a66658129469273581af35b296 Subject: Re: ULF: 5 wavelengths on the 101 km band? Valid or not? Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0023_01D28475.99BAC540"; type="multipart/alternative" 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-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.75 Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 10551 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0023_01D28475.99BAC540 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0024_01D28475.99BAC540" ------=_NextPart_001_0024_01D28475.99BAC540 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Good for emissions too Ed wet road =3D no smoke G,) [notice there is no abs, wheel is locked , so any nonsense about water cl= earing is not relevant, as the wheel is not turning] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3De_2RLAIjroE From: g3zjo Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2017 2:22 PM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: Re: ULF: 5 wavelengths on the 101 km band? Valid or not? Hi Stefan I am convinced, but do it again. On UK TV many years ago there was an advertisement for car tyres, they did= n't use an actor but an ex chief of police to say "I am convinced that this= is a contribution to road safety". The one thing he didn't sound was convi= nced. I cant write with that tone in my voice. :-) 73 Eddie G3ZJO On 11/02/2017 13:49, DK7FC wrote: Hi all, Meanwhile my 1 week taking transmission, starting 01.FEB.2017 23:30 UTC = on 2970.000000 Hz at 150...170 mA is completed. I tried to leave a trace/pe= ak into a range beyong 3 wavelengths. Renato Romero / IK1QFK is running a 5 uHz FFT spectrogram on 2970 Hz. He'= s using a well working E field antenna in Cumiana/Italy. The spectrogram is running since christmas evening 2016, available at htt= p://www.webalice.it/rromero/live_cumiana/last-LFtest_2970.jpg There are time markers in 1 week intervals. I can see a dash, a trace right on the frequency. It appeared 2 days afte= r i started transmitting, which is expected with an FFT window time of near= ly 3 days. The SNR was up to 12 dB during the visual observation of incomin= g spectra. Partly, the trace disappered during the transmission time (destructive in= terference with QRN). However i can see a resulting trace of a high average= SNR and exact (!) frequency stability relative to the other traces beeing = present in the spectrogram. I would tend to call it a serious detection of my signal. Spectrogram exp= erts, what's your opinion please? The distance is quite exactly at 5 wavelength on that 101 km band! It would be a first detection on ULF (0.3...3 kHz) between DL - I ! 73, Stefan --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ------=_NextPart_001_0024_01D28475.99BAC540 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Good  for  emissions too Ed 3D"Smile  
wet road =3D no  smoke
 
G,)
 
[notice there is  no abs, wheel is locked , so  any non= sense about water clearing  is not relevant, as the  wheel is not turning] 
 

Hi Stefan

I am convinced, but do it again.

On UK TV many years ago there was an advertisement  for car tyres, = they didn't use an actor but an ex chief of police to say "I am convinced that t= his is a contribution to road safety". The one thing he didn't sound was convin= ced. I cant write with that tone in my voice. :-)

73 Eddie G3ZJO


On 11/02/2017 13:49, DK7FC wrote:
Hi all,

Meanwhile my 1 week taking transmission, starting  01.FEB.20= 17 23:30 UTC on 2970.000000 Hz at 150...170 mA is completed. I tried to leav= e a trace/peak into a range beyong 3 wavelengths.

Renato Romero / IK1= QFK is running a 5 uHz FFT spectrogram on 2970 Hz. He's using a well working = E field antenna in Cumiana/Italy.
The spectrogram is running since chris= tmas evening 2016, available at http://www.webalice.it/rromero/live_cumiana/last= -LFtest_2970.jpg

There are time markers in 1 week intervals.

I can see a dash, a trace r= ight on the frequency. It appeared 2 days after i started transmitting, which = is expected with an FFT window time of nearly 3 days. The SNR was up to 12 d= B during the visual observation of incoming spectra.
Partly, the trace disappered during the transmission time (destructive interference with QR= N). However i can see a resulting trace of a high average SNR and exact (!) frequency stability relative to the other traces beeing present in the spectrogram.

I would tend to call it a serious detection of my sig= nal. Spectrogram experts, what's your opinion please?

The distance is q= uite exactly at 5 wavelength on that 101 km band!
It would be a first detection on ULF (0.3...3 kHz) between DL - I !


73, Stefan



3D"Avast

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.= com


------=_NextPart_001_0024_01D28475.99BAC540-- ------=_NextPart_000_0023_01D28475.99BAC540 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Emoticon1.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: R0lGODlhEwATALMPAPXv3v3pTvDHOei2K9u4a9qoLunPkLGLMdOZKfvbQMeyl5p4J+7JbrebXoAy GAAAACH5BAEAAA8ALAAAAAATABMAAASu8EkJDBNjMAOmf5UgJEGQJBj3AVfpuslAdBRDvu8p04YQ CIuFrzQIDgQFA2i4AAAWruYTgwiVFopnNCsUICy3hUMBvY67hcYwIHaU2Q43ZnAYuIDCUixYmC8G NzgmJyIZBQcXgYMnKIUDCA09jA4FgCcFCA4ZdFlHl5SbmQiGBx0GR0iZcXEIo5wUBH1ImK2tGQcN NCCxm70Dh7krBq2VvwgHB1kfExUNBwu4yh4RADs= ------=_NextPart_000_0023_01D28475.99BAC540--