Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by klubnl.pl (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8+deb8u2) with ESMTP id w0FAMQdW016537 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 11:22:29 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1eb1hR-00011V-R9 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:09:05 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1eb1h4-00011M-H1 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:08:42 +0000 Received: from lb2-smtp-cloud8.xs4all.net ([194.109.24.25]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eb1h1-0002xm-De for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:08:40 +0000 Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([83.162.220.82]) by smtp-cloud8.xs4all.net with ESMTP id b1gweP2HjppKgb1gxewYAa; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 11:08:36 +0100 From: "Roelof Bakker" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 11:08:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <5A5C7DA3.17768.591EA2@roelof.ndb.demon.nl> In-reply-to: References: , , X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.72.572) Content-description: Mail message body X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfFH4sqTKNp+yJ/nZCOp6Ea2m2+clNyr2ibEGVapl+UJFZNYdW17c6tVLE0OO68uC59v0s8O8vW62dYIcnmj4Pcyyf/YhqZ2TowQdSE+uAxfDlRpmetHb ZKd6eSKCGFCyhtiDEHvCpHXc/lBH/1ZHI0dAQvfWfmgaMLVOKYmsu53dmoVxwg8gyuqkCkxGgquZgw== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hello Graham, The answer to your question in regard to the difference in signal strength might be a new antenna that I am testing at the moment. It runs on a 6V gel cell battery and has a massive power consumption of 40 mW, compared to 800 mW for my standard mini-whip design. This one is called the pa0rdt-ECO-Mini-Whip! [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- X-Scan-Signature: 87966b345956c8ef3389b993f6a18f4e Subject: LF: Re: : RE: [rsgb_lf_group] 477 op8 results for VO1NA last night Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII 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 Graham, The answer to your question in regard to the difference in signal strength might be a new antenna that I am testing at the moment. It runs on a 6V gel cell battery and has a massive power consumption of 40 mW, compared to 800 mW for my standard mini-whip design. This one is called the pa0rdt-ECO-Mini-Whip! The signal level around 400 kHz is 6 dB less, yet at daytime the band noise is still 10 dB stronger than the receiver noise floor of my PERSEUS which has a noise figure of 18 dB. Gain is -14 dB, IIP2 = +72 dBm and IIP3 = +38 dBm using + 6 dBm test tones and tested with a test system with an OIP2 = + 120 dBm and OIP3 = + 60 dBm. 73, Roelof Bakker, pa0rdt