Return-Path: Received: from mtain-dh06.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-dh06.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.65.26]) by air-dc09.mail.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id MAILINDC093-86554d505ffa33; Mon, 07 Feb 2011 16:11:22 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dh06.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 97DC738000384; Mon, 7 Feb 2011 16:11:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1PmYKp-0001Tw-Ma for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 07 Feb 2011 21:09:23 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1PmYKo-0001Tn-In for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 07 Feb 2011 21:09:22 +0000 Received: from defout.telus.net ([204.209.205.55]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1PmYKj-00020H-JJ for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 07 Feb 2011 21:09:22 +0000 Received: from edmwcm04 ([204.209.205.55]) by priv-edmwes51.telusplanet.net (InterMail vM.8.01.03.00 201-2260-125-20100507) with ESMTP id <20110207210909.TJYD21031.priv-edmwes51.telusplanet.net@edmwcm04> for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2011 14:09:09 -0700 Received: from [192.168.1.74] ([75.157.148.65]) by edmwcm04 with bizsmtp id 594f1g01Y1QtnPv0194g6P; Mon, 07 Feb 2011 14:04:40 -0700 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=pRslCXot1MdNIZm/WrbMrB6uwpOFrCsh2l1gCSlVSO4= c=1 sm=1 a=BMPgXEj6qTkA:10 a=tO8V5CsaBQqgRrGA6OHoag==:17 a=3oc9M9_CAAAA:8 a=F3M5lZpKAAAA:8 a=nN7BH9HXAAAA:8 a=JEOAzyOdAAAA:8 a=d9yyYB5rAAAA:8 a=gjHbtiOjAAAA:8 a=-EoiaQOxAAAA:8 a=hAjYBYPxAAAA:8 a=FMD2nyJGk0QCDZGfugsA:9 a=yi6ZBV5g7JDuO2cVuycA:7 a=qYteH3iAlvEfPg038pTD657cYWIA:4 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=ggGJTFzxq0MA:10 a=K7vY6Qxm6dQA:10 a=U8Ie8EnqySEA:10 a=wk6s2zzMB60A:10 a=muIvw5a9-cgA:10 a=XKVnXpxKSjSGOW-s3ggA:9 a=TCZzU6dztVWgT5i48jMA:7 a=wPVFQxPMhbLk3et-USlh8aAaVhwA:4 a=tO8V5CsaBQqgRrGA6OHoag==:117 Message-ID: <4D505F74.1000208@telus.net> Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 13:09:08 -0800 From: Scott Tilley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <252130CB355C48E4BC32BA23475FEF68@White> <014201cbc6f4$028d5dd0$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <6EA05205DCDC45179C3ED6BE697A12C8@White> <016101cbc6fe$54e68f20$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> In-Reply-To: <016101cbc6fe$54e68f20$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> X-Spam-Score: 1.4 (+) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,RATWARE_GECKO_BUILD=1.426 Subject: Re: LF: Re: OE5ODL over different paths Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030502070604010701090609" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.7 required=5.0 tests=FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,HTML_30_40, HTML_MESSAGE 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: 3039ac1d411a4d505ff777b7 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) --------------030502070604010701090609 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Markus, You're wasting your time trying to explain anything to him. Just record his 'achievement' so he can crawl back under his bridge. 73 Scott VE7TIL On 2/7/2011 11:36 AM, mal hamilton wrote: > Markus > My report is more important by reporting that I can copy these signals > in a wide FFT bandwidth, more suitable information for QSO purposes at > reasonable speeds. > You seem to be concentrating on statistical recording data on narrow > FFT bandwidths which distorts the true facts. > ie One thinks that narrow FFT bandwidths are a necessity to observe > signals on VLF, which is not the case. > Most information circulating and grabbers seem to favour this narrow > FFT bandwith procedure. > My main object is to communicate at an appropriate speed for > conditions at the time and not be intimated by statistical nonsense. > I surely have proved the point over this past weekend by receiving > both DK7FC and OE5ODL in QRS3 mode and faster. > Until now the trend has been QRS600 or slower as the only way, and > mmmmmmmH FFT bandwidths. > I prefer to experiment and operate at the fastest QRS speed possible > and CW on LF/VLF to communicate > g3kev > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Markus Vester > *To:* rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > > *Sent:* Monday, February 07, 2011 7:04 PM > *Subject:* Re: LF: Re: OE5ODL over different paths > > Mal, > your report for Ossi is certainly acknowledged, and the fact that > your good receive conditions often allow you to see a signal in a > relatively wide FFT bandwidth was indeed noted. > In the context of my recent posting, it was not my intention to > list or qualify reception reports or DX achievements. In order to > visualise patterns of fieldstrength variation over of the day, I > was looking for continuous multi-hour traces on the available > grabbers. > And yes, an additional data set for your distance would be > valuable indeed. For this, you could either run SpecLab slowly, or > perhaps use it's plotter function to create a graph or list of > signal level versus time. > Best 73, > Markus (DF6NM) > > *From:* mal hamilton > *Sent:* Monday, February 07, 2011 7:22 PM > *To:* rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > > *Subject:* LF: Re: OE5ODL over different paths > > Markus > You forgot my reception report at 1191 km as confirmed by Stefan. > I was able to copy all day at a speed as fast as QRS3.The signal > for most of the day morning and afternoon was fairly steady. > The signal was strong enough for a QSO at QRS 3 or QRS10 > Please get the statistics correct, leaving out the 1191 km > distance distorts the facts. > g3kev > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Markus Vester > *To:* rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > > *Sent:* Monday, February 07, 2011 5:49 PM > *Subject:* VLF: OE5ODL over different paths > > Today's long carrier from OE5ODL provides another nice > illustration of the diurnal modal interference patterns. > The receivers at about 200 km see a minimum before and around > local noon > OE3GHB http://members.aon.at/grabber/VLF/index.html , > DF6NM http://www.mydarc.de/df6nm/vlf/vlfgrabber.htm . > However at about 400 km, a maximum occurs at the same time > DK7FC > http://www.iup.uni-heidelberg.de/schaefer_vlf/DK7FC_VLF_Grabber.html > ("600" window). > Renato's line at about 600 km > IK1QFK > http://www.webalice.it/rromero/pontese/Spectrum3/last-LFtest.jpg > looks somewhat flatter, but apparently receiver gain had been > stepped up at 12:45. > At nearly 2800 km, > TF3HZ > http://simnet.is/halldorgudmunds/TF3HZ_VLFgrabber/ ("2400" window) > again sees a rather flat inimum from about 10 to 12 UT. > Best 73, > Markus (DF6NM) > --------------030502070604010701090609 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Markus,

You're wasting your time trying to explain anything to him.  Just record his 'achievement' so he can crawl back under his bridge.

73 Scott
VE7TIL

On 2/7/2011 11:36 AM, mal hamilton wrote:
Markus
My report is more important by reporting that I can copy these signals in a wide FFT bandwidth, more suitable information for QSO purposes at reasonable speeds.
You seem to be concentrating on statistical recording data on narrow FFT bandwidths which distorts the true facts.
ie One thinks that narrow FFT bandwidths are a necessity to observe signals on VLF, which is not the case. 
Most information circulating and grabbers seem to favour this narrow FFT bandwith procedure.
My main object is to communicate at an appropriate speed for conditions at the time and not be intimated by statistical nonsense.
I surely have proved the point over this past weekend by receiving both DK7FC and OE5ODL in QRS3 mode and faster.
Until now the trend has been QRS600 or slower as the only way, and mmmmmmmH FFT bandwidths.
I prefer to experiment and operate at the fastest QRS speed possible and CW on LF/VLF to communicate
g3kev
 
   
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: LF: Re: OE5ODL over different paths

Mal,
 
your report for Ossi is certainly acknowledged, and the fact that your good receive conditions often allow you to see a signal in a relatively wide FFT bandwidth was indeed noted.
 
In the context of my recent posting, it was not my intention to list or qualify reception reports or DX achievements. In order to visualise patterns of fieldstrength variation over of the day, I was looking for continuous multi-hour traces on the available grabbers.
 
And yes, an additional data set for your distance would be valuable indeed. For this, you could either run SpecLab slowly, or perhaps use it's plotter function to create a graph or list of signal level versus time.
 
Best 73,
Markus (DF6NM)

Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 7:22 PM
Subject: LF: Re: OE5ODL over different paths

Markus
You forgot my reception report at  1191 km as confirmed by Stefan.
I was able to copy all day at a speed as fast as QRS3.The signal for most of the day morning and afternoon was fairly steady.
The signal was strong enough for a QSO at QRS 3 or QRS10
Please get the statistics correct, leaving out the 1191 km distance distorts the facts.
g3kev
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 5:49 PM
Subject: VLF: OE5ODL over different paths

Today's long carrier from OE5ODL provides another nice illustration of the diurnal modal interference patterns.
 
The receivers at about 200 km see a minimum before and around local noon
 
However at about 400 km, a maximum occurs at the same time
 
Renato's line at about 600 km
looks somewhat flatter, but apparently receiver gain had been stepped up at 12:45.
 
At nearly 2800 km,
again sees a rather flat inimum from about 10 to 12 UT.
 
Best 73,
Markus (DF6NM)
 

--------------030502070604010701090609--