Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) client-ip=195.171.43.25;
Message-ID: <52C6B80D.3070808@tiscali.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2014 13:15:57 +0000
From: Gary - G4WGT <g4wgt@tiscali.co.uk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <8D0D5D2B851B331-43C-AE94@webmail-d241.sysops.aol.com> <8D0D5D361CC2379-1E98-B405@webmail-d279.sysops.aol.com> <BBF61E47B1EF4FEC87014FB7DED4BD94@Extensa>
In-Reply-To: <BBF61E47B1EF4FEC87014FB7DED4BD94@Extensa>
Subject: Re: LF: Re: 8.3 kHz
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------010000070108050409020405"
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------010000070108050409020405
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Peter, LF etc,

I have also opened a split screen grabber looking at 8970Hz & 8270Hz to 
compare the noise levels etc.
You can access the grabber at my main grabber by a link "Go to Sub 9kHz" :-

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/wgtaylor/grabber2.html

Or its own dedicated page :-

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/wgtaylor/Sub9kHz.html

73, de Gary - G4WGT

PA1SDB, Peter wrote:
> My grabber at 8270 is loading. Lets see what QRM does here between 
> 8234 and 8305 Hz
> www.qsl.net/pa1sdb <http://www.qsl.net/pa1sdb>
> (did just start it at 23h00)
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* Markus Vester <mailto:markusvester@aol.com>
>     *To:* rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
>     <mailto:rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
>     *Sent:* Thursday, January 02, 2014 1:12 PM
>     *Subject:* VLF: 8.3 kHz
>
>     Sorry, first email was corrupted because I had forgotten to fill
>     in the subject line. 73, Markus
>
>
>     -----UrsprĂźngliche Mitteilung-----
>     Von: Markus Vester <markusvester@aol.com
>     <mailto:markusvester@aol.com>>
>     An: rsgb_lf_group <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
>     <mailto:rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>>
>     Verschickt: Do, 2 Jan 2014 2:07 pm
>
>     Dear Sub-9kHz'ers,
>     Marco DD7PC just made me aware of new German regulations, which
>     also includes a change of the unallocated VLF range. The latest
>     version of the "Freqenzverordnung" (FreqV)
>     http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/freqv/gesamt.pdf
>     has become effective already on August 27, 2013, and includes an
>     allocation of 8.3 to 9 kHz to the passive weather observing
>     service (ie. lightning locator networks). Strictly speaking, this
>     would make 8.97 kHz transmissions illegal in Germany (although
>     there may be a loophole with national footnote 2 regarding
>     "Induktionsfunkanlagen"). If I recall right, a similar legal
>     change in the UK had been announced in this group some time ago,
>     leading to the installation of some grabber windows around 8.27 kHz.
>     In practice, radiated powers achievable by amateurs (milliwatts at
>     best) are ten orders of magnitudes below to that emitted by
>     lightning events (100 megawatts). The chance of amateur
>     interference to a broadband lightning locator would thus be
>     absolutely neglegible. Even if somebody happened to activate his
>     kite within one kilometer from a detector station, any further
>     effect of interference would still be suppressed by redundancy in
>     the lightning location network.
>     Still, for publicly visible work (like claiming first contacts
>     etc), we should consider moving below 8.3 kHz. Of course there are
>     disadvantages, like
>     - local interference eg. from railway lines seems to be much
>     denser and stronger at lower frequency,
>     - at same antenna voltage, radiated power will be 1.4 dB less,
>     - more coil winding is required,
>     - acoustical side-effect of transmitting may be more disturbing,
>     ... es nervt einfach!!
>     But then, one should always embrace change... positive aspects may be
>     - lower QRN background in quiet locations,
>     - with common international legislation, the necessity of sub-9kHz
>     NOV's in the UK might become obsolescent,
>     - EA5HVK might be motivated to provide an Opera version with
>     flexible frequency assignment.
>     In my location, I am mostly affected by 16.67 / 33.3 Hz modulated
>     interference emitted by railway overhead lines, in addition to the
>     usual 50 Hz related junk. To possibly identify a sweet spot with
>     relatively low interference, I have temporarily shifted the
>     frequency range of my faster VLF grabber windows:
>     http://df6nm.darc.de/vlf/vlfgrabber.htm
>     Judging by the first hours, near 8280 Hz may be significantly
>     better than 8270. But interference comes and goes with time, so
>     longer observations are needed. Note that the heavy interference
>     between 11 and 12 UT could have been exacerbated by my noise
>     blanker settings as it is much less severe in the wideband window.
>     At this time, I would like to encourage other receiver operators
>     to closely investigate their noise levels just below 8.3 kHz.
>
>     Best 73,
>     Markus (DF6NM)
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3658/6971 - Release Date: 01/02/14
>


--------------010000070108050409020405
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Peter, LF etc,<br>
      <br>
      I have also opened a split screen grabber looking at 8970Hz &amp;
      8270Hz to compare the noise levels etc.<br>
      You can access the grabber at my main grabber by a link "Go to Sub
      9kHz" :-<br>
      <br>
      <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/wgtaylor/grabber2.html">http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/wgtaylor/grabber2.html</a><br>
      <br>
      Or its own dedicated page :-<br>
      <br>
      <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/wgtaylor/Sub9kHz.html">http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/wgtaylor/Sub9kHz.html</a><br>
      <br>
      73, de Gary - G4WGT <br>
      <br>
      PA1SDB, Peter wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote cite="mid:BBF61E47B1EF4FEC87014FB7DED4BD94@Extensa"
      type="cite">
      <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
      <meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19088">
      <style></style>
      <div><font face="Georgia">My grabber at 8270 is loading. Lets see
          what QRM does here between 8234 and 8305 Hz</font></div>
      <div><font face="Georgia"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
            href="http://www.qsl.net/pa1sdb">www.qsl.net/pa1sdb</a> </font></div>
      <div>Â </div>
      <div><font face="Georgia">(did just start it at 23h00)</font></div>
      <div>Â </div>
      <div>Â </div>
      <div>Â </div>
      <div>Â </div>
      <blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT:
        5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
        dir="ltr">
        <div style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </div>
        <div style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color:
          black"><b>From:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
            title="markusvester@aol.com"
            href="mailto:markusvester@aol.com">Markus Vester</a> </div>
        <div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a
            moz-do-not-send="true" title="rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org"
            href="mailto:rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org">rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org</a>
        </div>
        <div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, January 02,
          2014 1:12 PM</div>
        <div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> VLF: 8.3 kHz</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div style="FONT-FAMILY: arial; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Sorry,
          first email was corrupted because I had forgotten to fill in
          the subject line. 73, Markus</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        -----UrsprĂźngliche Mitteilung----- <br>
        Von: Markus Vester &lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true"
          href="mailto:markusvester@aol.com">markusvester@aol.com</a>&gt;<br>
        An: rsgb_lf_group &lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true"
          href="mailto:rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org">rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org</a>&gt;<br>
        Verschickt: Do, 2 Jan 2014 2:07 pm<br>
        <br>
        <div id="AOLMsgPart_1_c94ca459-5e08-444e-b83a-50662cd60251">
          <div style="FONT-FAMILY: arial; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Dear
            Sub-9kHz'ers,</div>
          <div style="FONT-FAMILY: arial; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Â </div>
          <div style="FONT-FAMILY: arial; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Marco
            DD7PC just made me aware of new German regulations, which
            also includes a change of the unallocated VLF range. The
            latest version of the "Freqenzverordnung" (FreqV) <br>
            <a moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/freqv/gesamt.pdf"
              target="_blank">http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/freqv/gesamt.pdf</a><br>
            has become effective already on August 27, 2013, and
            includes an allocation of 8.3 to 9 kHz to the passive
            weather observing service (ie. lightning locator networks).
            Strictly speaking, this would make 8.97 kHz transmissions
            illegal in Germany (although there may be a loophole with
            national footnote 2 regarding "Induktionsfunkanlagen"). If I
            recall right, a similar legal change in the UK had been
            announced in this group some time ago, leading to the
            installation of some grabber windows around 8.27 kHz. </div>
          <div style="FONT-FAMILY: arial; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Â </div>
          <div style="FONT-FAMILY: arial; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">In
            practice, radiated powers achievable by amateurs (milliwatts
            at best) are ten orders of magnitudes below to that emitted
            by lightning events (100 megawatts). The chance of amateur
            interference to a broadband lightning locator would thus be
            absolutely neglegible. Even if somebody happened to activate
            his kite within one kilometer from a detector station, any
            further effect of interference would still be suppressed by
            redundancy in the lightning location network. </div>
          <div style="FONT-FAMILY: arial; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Â </div>
          <div style="FONT-FAMILY: arial; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Still,
            for publicly visible work (like claiming first contacts
            etc), we should consider moving below 8.3 kHz. Of course
            there are disadvantages, like<br>
            - local interference eg. from railway lines seems to be much
            denser and stronger at lower frequency, <br>
            - at same antenna voltage, radiated power will be 1.4 dB
            less,<br>
            - more coil winding is required,<br>
            - acoustical side-effect of transmitting may be more
            disturbing, <br>
            ... es nervt einfach!!</div>
          <div style="FONT-FAMILY: arial; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Â </div>
          <div style="FONT-FAMILY: arial; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">But
            then, one should always embrace change... positive aspects
            may be<br>
            - lower QRN background in quiet locations,<br>
            - with common international legislation, the necessity of
            sub-9kHz NOV's in the UK might become obsolescent,<br>
            - EA5HVK might be motivated to provide an Opera version with
            flexible frequency assignment. </div>
          <div style="FONT-FAMILY: arial; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Â </div>
          <div style="FONT-FAMILY: arial; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">In
            my location, I am mostly affected by 16.67 / 33.3 Hz
            modulated interference emitted by railway overhead lines, in
            addition to the usual 50 Hz related junk. To possibly
            identify a sweet spot with relatively low interference, I
            have temporarily shifted the frequency range of my faster
            VLF grabber windows:<br>
            <a moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="http://df6nm.darc.de/vlf/vlfgrabber.htm"
              target="_blank">http://df6nm.darc.de/vlf/vlfgrabber.htm</a><br>
            Judging by the first hours, near 8280 Hz may be
            significantly better than 8270. But interference comes and
            goes with time, so longer observations are needed. Note that
            the heavy interference between 11 and 12 UT could have been
            exacerbated by my noise blanker settings as it is much less
            severe in the wideband window. At this time, I would like to
            encourage other receiver operators to closely investigate
            their noise levels just below 8.3 kHz.<br>
            Â <br>
            Best 73,<br>
            Markus (DF6NM)</div>
          <div style="FONT-FAMILY: arial; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><br>
            Â </div>
        </div>
      </blockquote>
      <p class="" avgcert""="" color="#000000" align="left">No virus
        found in this message.<br>
        Checked by AVG - <a moz-do-not-send="true"
          href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</a><br>
        Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3658/6971 - Release Date:
        01/02/14</p>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------010000070108050409020405--