Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.237.98 with SMTP id vb2csp25143igc; Sat, 1 Feb 2014 08:02:55 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.180.87.232 with SMTP id bb8mr2955968wib.48.1391270574223; Sat, 01 Feb 2014 08:02:54 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id q3si1418191wia.79.2014.02.01.08.02.53 for ; Sat, 01 Feb 2014 08:02:54 -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 1W9cWK-0000i8-FI for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 01 Feb 2014 15:30:12 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1W9cWK-0000hs-0c for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 01 Feb 2014 15:30:12 +0000 Received: from mout3.freenet.de ([195.4.92.93]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (UNKNOWN:AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1W9cWI-0002CE-Fo for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 01 Feb 2014 15:30:10 +0000 Received: from [195.4.92.140] (helo=mjail0.freenet.de) by mout3.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (port 25) (Exim 4.80.1 #4) id 1W9cWG-0001B2-OG for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 01 Feb 2014 16:30:08 +0100 Received: from localhost ([::1]:37115 helo=mjail0.freenet.de) by mjail0.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (Exim 4.80.1 #4) id 1W9cWG-0000Mq-Ia for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 01 Feb 2014 16:30:08 +0100 Received: from mx10.freenet.de ([195.4.92.20]:44949) by mjail0.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (Exim 4.80.1 #4) id 1W9cTj-0007gU-U9 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 01 Feb 2014 16:27:31 +0100 Received: from blfd-d9bf6cb0.pool.mediaways.net ([217.191.108.176]:2300 helo=[192.168.178.21]) by mx10.freenet.de with esmtpsa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (port 465) (Exim 4.80.1 #4) id 1W9cTj-0007e8-I5 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 01 Feb 2014 16:27:31 +0100 Message-ID: <52ED1260.1020404@freenet.de> Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2014 16:27:28 +0100 From: wolf_dl4yhf User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: In-Reply-To: X-Originated-At: 217.191.108.176!2300 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 Chris, Am 01.02.2014 16:18, schrieb C. Groeger: > Thanks for quick reply, Wolf! > > But then propagation from a mf tx on a ship on sea should be worse then from land? Interesting theory.. never thought about that... maybe because the ship's metal body, floating in a highly conductive (saltwater) medium is a better counterpoise than we can dream of, and the direct surroundings around the antenna are conductive but not lossy. [...] Content analysis details: (-0.5 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [195.4.92.93 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (dl4yhf[at]freenet.de) -0.5 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: 4ead635eadbaebfaa92cfec77deb715d Subject: Re: LF: Ant current Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; 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 Hello Chris, Am 01.02.2014 16:18, schrieb C. Groeger: > Thanks for quick reply, Wolf! > > But then propagation from a mf tx on a ship on sea should be worse then from land? Interesting theory.. never thought about that... maybe because the ship's metal body, floating in a highly conductive (saltwater) medium is a better counterpoise than we can dream of, and the direct surroundings around the antenna are conductive but not lossy. I remember a suggestion in 'Rothammel's Antennenbuch' to enrich the soil with copper sufate (!) which I certainly don't recommend. Not even pouring kilograms of gritting salt in the garden around the antenna. The experiment would be interesting, but has unwanted side effects ("look what you've done to my pretty flowers"..) ! Cheers, Wolf .