Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dk05.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 7074B38000085; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 05:50:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1SJM56-0003aC-2y for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 10:49:16 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1SJM55-0003a3-Fs for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 10:49:15 +0100 Received: from cpsmtpb-ews08.kpnxchange.com ([213.75.39.13]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SJM53-0005fF-3g for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 10:49:14 +0100 Received: from cpsps-ews12.kpnxchange.com ([10.94.84.179]) by cpsmtpb-ews08.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 15 Apr 2012 11:49:11 +0200 Received: from CPSMTPM-CMT108.kpnxchange.com ([195.121.3.24]) by cpsps-ews12.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.17514); Sun, 15 Apr 2012 11:49:11 +0200 Received: from [192.168.2.13] ([62.131.23.134]) by CPSMTPM-CMT108.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.0.6002.18264); Sun, 15 Apr 2012 11:49:11 +0200 Message-ID: <4F8A9997.20105@kpnmail.nl> Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 11:49:11 +0200 From: pa3abk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <20120415104118.xw4cii7ibk00ow0o@webmail.senselan.ch> In-Reply-To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Apr 2012 09:49:11.0754 (UTC) FILETIME=[02A4D2A0:01CD1AED] X-RcptDomain: blacksheep.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) 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: Nice question. My friend Google couldn't produce an instant answer. What I know is that they used to have two frequency bands in use: 300m & 600m. Knowing that the MGY was a modern vessel assume he had both and he certainly should have produced his CQD on all frequencies available. [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [213.75.39.13 listed in list.dnswl.org] X-Scan-Signature: 66d07794ca19cd68f7d6cc289cd4ac18 Subject: Re: LF: Titanic Frequency Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed 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=0.0 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-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:491040512:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1db4094f8a99dd6563 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Nice question. My friend Google couldn't produce an instant answer. What I know is that they used to have two frequency bands in use: 300m & 600m. Knowing that the MGY was a modern vessel assume he had both and he certainly should have produced his CQD on all frequencies available. http://marconigraph.com/titanic/wireless/mgy_wireless.html As Andy pointed out, sparktransmitters do have wideband, when a couple of stations were in the air the spectra was well occupied. There was also a certain "isolation" between Marconi and non-Marconi stations, which they didn't improve the initial contacts and QSP. The 600m came official alive after the disaster. BTW The company I work for, still has of a wirelesstation in the showroom from those days (1916). A Telefunken spark transmitter working on both 300m & 600m. It's quite an eye catcher between all the modern stuff and a good marketing tool :-) Jan/pa3abk On 15-4-2012 10:52, Andy Talbot wrote: > It was using spark wasn't it ? > So an early spread spectrum transmission > > Centre frequency based on antenna resonance ? > > 'jnt > > > On 15 April 2012 08:41, wrote: >> Does anybody know, on which frequency the titanic sent the SOS? Was it really >> 500kc/s? >> 73 de Toni, HB9ASB >> >> > -- pa3abk<-> dordrecht jo21it