Received-SPF: none (google.com: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=195.171.43.25;
From: DK7FC <73dk7fc@googlemail.com>
Message-ID: <538CF687.70409@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 00:11:19 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <538CD411.9000608@abelian.org> <538CE3C3.7030304@gmail.com> <538CE9B6.90606@abelian.org>
In-Reply-To: <538CE9B6.90606@abelian.org>
Subject: Re: VLF: W4DEX trans-Atlantic at 8971 Hz
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

Hi Paul,

I remember you tried to get something of my transmission from the fixed 
antenna here in Heidelberg on Mike's side, also without success. Was 
there any RX improvement during that time on Mike's side?
BTW, remembering the discussions a few months ago: Is the lower 
allocation border still 9 kHz in the US, or did it move to 8.3 kHz as 
well? I'm the last one who cares about that nonsense, you know, but 
still asking...

73, Stefan

Am 02.06.2014 23:16, schrieb Paul Nicholson:
> Going east to west is much harder, maybe 20dB harder, thanks to
> anisotropy of ionospheric reflection which is very significant
> at VLF.
>
> Mike Smith near Lynchburg, VA, has an excellent E-field rx at a
> quiet location.  I have hopes he will put up orthogonal loops.
> Mike uses the same VLF software as used here,
>
>  http://abelian.org/vlfrx-tools/
>
> Mike's VLF receiver is streamed online, see vlf35 'Forest' at
>
>  http://abelian.org/vlf
>
> and there is a temporary 8971.1 Hz spectrum updated every 30
> mins at
>
>  http://46.4.26.83/sp8971_vlf35.png
>
> Uwe DJ8WX made determined attempts earlier in the year to reach
> Lynchburg and I used every trick I could think of to search for
> his signal in Mike's data, but I think we were still a few dB
> under the noise.
>
> Stefan wrote:
>
> > PS: 8.97 (+-), that was the _right_ frequency range *thumbs up*! :-)
>
> Indeed, when operating at the limits of what is possible, the dB or
> so difference between 8970 and 8270 becomes very significant.   The
> European restriction to sub 8.3kHz is presumably to avoid lightning
> detection networks.  But these would surely be unaffected by these
> very weak amateur signals unless the tx was within a few km of
> a meteorological receiver.   Perhaps with suitable representation
> from national amateur radio organisations, the situation could be
> re-considered.
>
> -- 
> Paul Nicholson
> -- 
>