Message-ID: <4D163E24.6000804@freenet.de>
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 19:55:32 +0100
From: wolf_dl4yhf <dl4yhf@freenet.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <1293285583.9520.26.camel@pat-compaq-evo> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1012251734180.18305@paranoid.lipkowski.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1012251734180.18305@paranoid.lipkowski.org>
Subject: Re: LF: Receivers vs Transmitters etc. = "Mal'isms"
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


IIRC, the antennas at SAQ are just  a small fraction of what they used 
to be.
I think not all of the remaining masts there 'carry wires'. So the ERP 
may have been much larger back then in the early days of the station. 
Maybe some Grimeton visitors who have seen the installation can comment 
on this.

Cheers,
    Wolf .


Am 25.12.2010 17:41, schrieb Jacek Lipkowski:
> On Sat, 25 Dec 2010, g4gvw wrote:
>
>> [...] I seem to recall that the earliest experimenters used far less 
>> sensitive circuits and devices. [...]
>
> it's also quite remarkable that once the range was limited mostly by 
> receiver sensitivity, while right now by the ability to reject qrm. 
> SAQ was once in regular commercial service with New York with simple 
> receivers at the other end (btw. anyone know what rx was used?), right 
> now people in the States are struggling to receive the signal with the 
> latest technology (dsp etc).
>
> think how much the qrm must have gone up...
>
> VY 73
>
> Jacek / SQ5BPF
>
>
>
>
>
>