Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dg05.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 687CE38000088; Sat, 8 Sep 2012 19:46:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TAUiT-0002mA-JI for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 09 Sep 2012 00:45:33 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TAUiT-0002m1-1u for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 09 Sep 2012 00:45:33 +0100 Received: from mout0.freenet.de ([195.4.92.90]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (UNKNOWN:AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TAUiR-000750-BB for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 09 Sep 2012 00:45:31 +0100 Received: from [195.4.92.141] (helo=mjail1.freenet.de) by mout0.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (port 25) (Exim 4.76 #1) id 1TAUiP-00051J-62 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 09 Sep 2012 01:45:29 +0200 Received: from localhost ([::1]:41744 helo=mjail1.freenet.de) by mjail1.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (Exim 4.76 #1) id 1TAUiO-0000IY-W6 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 09 Sep 2012 01:45:29 +0200 Received: from [195.4.92.14] (port=58392 helo=4.mx.freenet.de) by mjail1.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (Exim 4.76 #1) id 1TAUg7-0000EL-Mj for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 09 Sep 2012 01:43:07 +0200 Received: from blfd-4db02ab4.pool.mediaways.net ([77.176.42.180]:2673 helo=[192.168.178.22]) by 4.mx.freenet.de with esmtpsa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (port 465) (Exim 4.76 #1) id 1TAUg7-0006qi-Gd for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 09 Sep 2012 01:43:07 +0200 Message-ID: <504BD80C.90207@freenet.de> Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2012 01:43:08 +0200 From: wolf_dl4yhf User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <12fe8.4c562f1.3d7d1434@aol.com> <504BC546.2000105@gmail.com> <504BCD96.2010901@freenet.de> <003a01cd8e17$f3e02f00$6401a8c0@JAYDELL> In-Reply-To: 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: Hello Joe, rrr - but their RX frequency is 3544 kHz now. 73, Wolf . Am 09.09.2012 01:32, schrieb jcraig@mun.ca: > Hi Jay, Group. > > RX is now on 472.5 kHz and TX QRV on 1825. Lets hope they resume > operations. > > 73 > Joe > > On Sat, 8 Sep 2012, > >> Does anyone know if they will be operating during the overnight period? >> >> Jay W1VD WD2XNS WE2XGR/2 >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "wolf_dl4yhf" >> To: >> Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2012 6:58 PM >> Subject: Re: LF: Re: Re: Re: DK0SWF antenna >> >> >>> John, >>> >>> you wrote: >>> >>> > >>> Calling CQ ad infinitum, while also 60Hz higher I also copy DF0WD >>> calling CQ too. I assume neither station can hear each other? >>> < >>> >>> Of course I could hear DK0SWF calling CQ about 100 Hz away. But I >>> had given up, finally, after trying for the umpteenth time to get a >>> response from them. As Mal and others already noted, their signal >>> was incredibly strong, but they must have had a very, very serious >>> problem with their receiver. Maybe they should have asked the SWF >>> (Südwestfunk) to close down some of the transmitters in their >>> vincinity ? Oh well. Hope the pilots in Poland were not too >>> irritated by the powerful signal, which even beat DK7FC's signal by >>> far ! >>> >>> Despite all the trouble, I was positively surprised to make a QSO >>> with OM1II, whom I heard earlier on, but didn't want to add to the >>> confusion on the semi-official "calling frequency" (472.5 kHz). Also >>> thanks to G3KEV, DK8KW, DJ2LF, and DF5QF for the nice QSOs. OZ7FOC >>> was partly audible, but difficult tonight. >>> >>> 73, >>> Wolf DL4YHF / DF0WD >>> >>> >>>> >>>> While I applaud any new MF activity, I wonder why, if DK0SWF are >>>> unable to receive efficiently on their antenna, they call CQ? >>>> >>>> Surely if this is a "one time" opportunity to transmit from "SWF" >>>> and reception is impossible they could do something else with the >>>> time on the air. A WSPR transmission for the same length of time >>>> would gather much [...] 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 [195.4.92.90 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (dl4yhf[at]freenet.de) 0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: bf9cd6b3d49c805062abf73a1027fea8 Subject: Re: LF: Re: Re: Re: DK0SWF antenna Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; 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-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d410d504bd8dc2b94 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Hello Joe, rrr - but their RX frequency is 3544 kHz now. 73, Wolf . Am 09.09.2012 01:32, schrieb jcraig@mun.ca: > Hi Jay, Group. > > RX is now on 472.5 kHz and TX QRV on 1825. Lets hope they resume > operations. > > 73 > Joe > > On Sat, 8 Sep 2012, jrusgrove@comcast.net wrote: > >> Does anyone know if they will be operating during the overnight period? >> >> Jay W1VD WD2XNS WE2XGR/2 >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "wolf_dl4yhf" >> To: >> Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2012 6:58 PM >> Subject: Re: LF: Re: Re: Re: DK0SWF antenna >> >> >>> John, >>> >>> you wrote: >>> >>> > >>> Calling CQ ad infinitum, while also 60Hz higher I also copy DF0WD >>> calling CQ too. I assume neither station can hear each other? >>> < >>> >>> Of course I could hear DK0SWF calling CQ about 100 Hz away. But I >>> had given up, finally, after trying for the umpteenth time to get a >>> response from them. As Mal and others already noted, their signal >>> was incredibly strong, but they must have had a very, very serious >>> problem with their receiver. Maybe they should have asked the SWF >>> (Südwestfunk) to close down some of the transmitters in their >>> vincinity ? Oh well. Hope the pilots in Poland were not too >>> irritated by the powerful signal, which even beat DK7FC's signal by >>> far ! >>> >>> Despite all the trouble, I was positively surprised to make a QSO >>> with OM1II, whom I heard earlier on, but didn't want to add to the >>> confusion on the semi-official "calling frequency" (472.5 kHz). Also >>> thanks to G3KEV, DK8KW, DJ2LF, and DF5QF for the nice QSOs. OZ7FOC >>> was partly audible, but difficult tonight. >>> >>> 73, >>> Wolf DL4YHF / DF0WD >>> >>> >>>> >>>> While I applaud any new MF activity, I wonder why, if DK0SWF are >>>> unable to receive efficiently on their antenna, they call CQ? >>>> >>>> Surely if this is a "one time" opportunity to transmit from "SWF" >>>> and reception is impossible they could do something else with the >>>> time on the air. A WSPR transmission for the same length of time >>>> would gather much more usefuly information than calling CQ with no >>>> hope of hearing any replies? >>>> >>>> John >>>> GM4SLV >>>> IP90gg >>>> Shetland Isles >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > This electronic communication is governed by the terms and conditions at > http://www.mun.ca/cc/policies/electronic_communications_disclaimer_2012.php > > > >