Return-Path: <owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org> Received: from rly-mh10.mx.aol.com (rly-mh10.mail.aol.com [172.21.166.146]) by air-mh03.mail.aol.com (v121_r5.5) with ESMTP id MAILINMH034-bfe49732a5d282; Sun, 18 Jan 2009 08:11:05 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-mh10.mx.aol.com (v121_r4.4) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINMH106-bfe49732a5d282; Sun, 18 Jan 2009 08:10:54 -0500 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1LOXQ9-0003fP-9w for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:10:33 +0000 Received: from [193.82.59.130] (helo=relay2.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1LOXQ8-0003fG-T4 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:10:32 +0000 Received: from mout3.freenet.de ([195.4.92.93]) by relay2.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <dl4yhf@freenet.de>) id 1LOXQ7-0007gj-OI for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:10:32 +0000 Received: from [195.4.92.21] (helo=11.mx.freenet.de) by mout3.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (port 25) (Exim 4.69 #76) id 1LOXQ0-0007SD-0J for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:10:30 +0100 Received: from e177186022.adsl.alicedsl.de ([85.177.186.22]:1538 helo=[192.168.0.101]) by 11.mx.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (port 25) (Exim 4.69 #76) id 1LOXPz-0000hN-EQ for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:10:23 +0100 Message-ID: <49732A3D.90206@freenet.de> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:10:21 +0100 From: =?windows-1252?Q?Wolfgang_B=FCscher?= <dl4yhf@freenet.de> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <PAEFLMFGBDKKCONLMLBICEAODCAA.ganymede444@btopenworld.com> <92949CB2DED94059B4BEA6D3BA10FDD7@JimPC> <20090118103211.542b3582@lurcher> <4973120D.9090408@freenet.de> <497321E0.8090007@online.fr> In-Reply-To: <497321E0.8090007@online.fr> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,AWL=0.023 Subject: Re: LF: Re: 137 kHz WSPR tests Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none 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-IP: 193.82.116.20 X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) Hello Jean-Pierre, Uwe, and all; Jean-Pierre Méré (F1AFJ) schrieb: > If I understand well , I am very favoured not to have a more local QRN > ! for 9 months I systematically put at fault the jammer by making a > “tune” on 7 MHz before bringing the grabber into service each evening > ! The jammer was replaced and I am quiet ! But how long will that last > ? Now I manage to see the lines of the loran of Lessay (350km) in > qrss3 and they is super !!!!! > > 73 qro Jean-Pierre f1afj > Ok, now I understand the importance of the "qro" even for weak signal work ;-) Seriously, it's a small town, and I already use a neighbour's meadow for a remote VLF receiver (temporarily installed, with an UHF FM link to the shack). I cannot expect to get permission for such experiments by beginning a "real battle" here, with either QRO or RegTP (german 'regulator') involved . 73, Wolf .