Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.237.98 with SMTP id vb2csp60319igc; Fri, 3 Jan 2014 09:01:31 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.180.104.106 with SMTP id gd10mr2259012wib.47.1388768490446; Fri, 03 Jan 2014 09:01:30 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id ey10si1056587wib.12.2014.01.03.09.01.29 for ; Fri, 03 Jan 2014 09:01:30 -0800 (PST) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; 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) smtp.mail=owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Vz80D-000512-HR for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 03 Jan 2014 16:53:41 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Vz80C-00050t-Qq for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 03 Jan 2014 16:53:40 +0000 Received: from out.ipsmtp2nec.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.202.74]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Vz809-00063j-0L for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 03 Jan 2014 16:53:39 +0000 X-SMTPAUTH: g4wgt@tiscali.co.uk X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ah0CAOXqxlJYaCWm/2dsb2JhbAANQQqCR3xPgwSjfok3iFeBI4MZAQEBAgIjJi8NBAsRAwEBAQEJFggDAgIJAwIBAgE0CQgTBgIBAYdsAxkFqDZ2lRQahDMXjHsZgRgGCwECDxkVFwEGgmmBSASZR4stiGSBaAkb X-IPAS-Result: Ah0CAOXqxlJYaCWm/2dsb2JhbAANQQqCR3xPgwSjfok3iFeBI4MZAQEBAgIjJi8NBAsRAwEBAQEJFggDAgIJAwIBAgE0CQgTBgIBAYdsAxkFqDZ2lRQahDMXjHsZgRgGCwECDxkVFwEGgmmBSASZR4stiGSBaAkb X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,598,1384300800"; d="scan'208,217";a="81633617" Received: from 88-104-37-166.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com (HELO [192.168.1.2]) ([88.104.37.166]) by out.ipsmtp2nec.opaltelecom.net with ESMTP; 03 Jan 2014 16:53:29 +0000 Message-ID: <52C6EB0A.6020305@tiscali.co.uk> Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2014 16:53:30 +0000 From: Gary - G4WGT 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> <52C6B80D.3070808@tiscali.co.uk> <73F7C5F579994A6D875B436D0CA6B35D@White> In-Reply-To: <73F7C5F579994A6D875B436D0CA6B35D@White> 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: Marcus, LF, Ref : My split 8270Hz & 8970Hz grabber. I had difficulty getting the sample rate detector running, getting message frequency too far off or similar, SL version v2.79 b04. I gave up in the end & re-started using an older version of SL (which I have no problem with) & is detecting MSK reference OK, SL version v2.78 b05. [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (g4wgt[at]tiscali.co.uk) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: 90338e40e9ba9cca82d2bbd7ba5c2c02 Subject: Re: LF: Re: 8.3 kHz Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040905030206080403050907" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040905030206080403050907 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Marcus, LF, Ref : My split 8270Hz & 8970Hz grabber. I had difficulty getting the sample rate detector running, getting message frequency too far off or similar, SL version v2.79 b04. I gave up in the end & re-started using an older version of SL (which I have no problem with) & is detecting MSK reference OK, SL version v2.78 b05. *73, de Gary - G4WGT MF-LF-VLF Grabber : http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/wgtaylor/grabber2.html Web : http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/wgtaylor/index.html* . On 03/01/2014 13:27, Markus Vester wrote: > Gary > great, thanks for pointing this out. I really like that side-by-side > comparison. Assuming you are using nonresonant input circuitry and > equal brightness settings, 8.27 kHz seems a tad noisier than 8.97. But > it looks like 8270 is least QRM free. > Best 73, > Markus (DF6NM) > > *From:* Gary - G4WGT > *Sent:* Friday, January 03, 2014 2:15 PM > *To:* rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > *Subject:* Re: LF: Re: 8.3 kHz > > 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 >> (did just start it at 23h00) >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Markus Vester >> *To:* 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 >> >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung----- >> Von: Markus Vester > > >> An: rsgb_lf_group > > >> 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 >> Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3658/6971 - Release Date: 01/02/14 >> > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3658/6971 - Release Date: 01/02/14 > --------------040905030206080403050907 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Marcus, LF,

Ref : My split 8270Hz & 8970Hz grabber.
I had difficulty getting the sample rate detector running, getting message frequency too far off or similar, SL version v2.79 b04.
I gave up in the end & re-started using an older version of SL (which I have no problem with) & is detecting MSK reference OK, SL version v2.78 b05.
73, de Gary - G4WGT
                            
MF-LF-VLF Grabber : http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/wgtaylor/grabber2.html
Web : http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/wgtaylor/index.html

.
On 03/01/2014 13:27, Markus Vester wrote:
Gary
 
great, thanks for pointing this out. I really like that side-by-side comparison. Assuming you are using nonresonant input circuitry and equal brightness settings, 8.27 kHz seems a tad noisier than 8.97. But it looks like 8270 is least QRM free.
 
Best 73,
Markus (DF6NM)

Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: LF: Re: 8.3 kHz

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
 
(did just start it at 23h00)
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
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


-----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung-----
Von: Markus Vester <markusvester@aol.com>
An: rsgb_lf_group <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
Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3658/6971 - Release Date: 01/02/14


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3658/6971 - Release Date: 01/02/14


--------------040905030206080403050907--