Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mg04.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 0AACD3800009F; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 14:45:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TdR5U-0006YG-SF for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 19:44:56 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TdR5U-0006Y7-Ey for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 19:44:56 +0000 Received: from smtpout4.wanadoo.co.uk ([80.12.242.68] helo=smtpout.wanadoo.co.uk) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TdR5S-0007kl-1B for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 19:44:55 +0000 Received: from AGB ([2.26.46.194]) by mwinf5d50 with ME id UjkY1k00X4BNQmy03jkYMm; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 20:44:33 +0100 Message-ID: <4ACDDE60876948F2BBB7BAEC4C1832CC@AGB> From: "Graham" To: References: <000e01cdccaf$7c90f430$0501a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <8CF9AD2D48B5D25-21FC-1F898@webmail-m143.sysops.aol.com> <001e01cdccc1$7bab7100$0501a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <20121127192509.193760@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <20121127192509.193760@gmx.net> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 19:44:32 -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-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: There you are Mal, and just to prove it , that was sent from a 'small phone' as opposed to a big one , with long wires , with a rusty can at each end ! one thing that's missing ,in these exchanges , is the question as to why the layer energising experiments use mid HF frequency's , like harp or the one in north Norway on 7 mhz , with MW's of power and vertical radiation Ae's , then the chance of over head heating with a BC ae that is designed to send rf to the listener (unless on the ISS) seams' minimal , any vertical array should have a null at 90 deg az ? [...] Content analysis details: (0.2 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [80.12.242.68 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.2 STOX_REPLY_TYPE STOX_REPLY_TYPE X-Scan-Signature: 3b8620872b19e25fb6f4dfaf1256edc3 Subject: Re: LF: Luxemburg effect etc 208 ? Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME 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-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d60cc50b5187100ec X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none There you are Mal, and just to prove it , that was sent from a 'small phone' as opposed to a big one , with long wires , with a rusty can at each end ! one thing that's missing ,in these exchanges , is the question as to why the layer energising experiments use mid HF frequency's , like harp or the one in north Norway on 7 mhz , with MW's of power and vertical radiation Ae's , then the chance of over head heating with a BC ae that is designed to send rf to the listener (unless on the ISS) seams' minimal , any vertical array should have a null at 90 deg az ? G.. -------------------------------------------------- From: Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 7:25 PM To: Subject: Re: LF: Luxemburg effect etc > Dear Mal, > >> The Luxemburg effect could be in your own back yard, the Rusty Nail >> syndrome, rectification taking place, dissimilar metals with antennas and >> plugs/sockets etc >> Using small active antennas in strong signal environments could also be >> the cause that you and others are getting. >> I am not convinced by those that think it is the Luxemburg effect >> ... > > Small active antennas do not suffer from Rusty Nails. > They have no nails. Small active antennas usually have > operational amplifiers offering a dynamic range of > some Volts feeding modern switched mixers having > IP3s around >20 dB. > > Those effects are a well known problem using big longwave > antennas spanned between huge metallic towers. > > Laura, > (SWL) > > Geschreibt von meine Smallphone. >