Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.237.98 with SMTP id vb2csp47517igc; Fri, 3 Jan 2014 05:31:58 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.194.1.139 with SMTP id 11mr59382642wjm.33.1388755917265; Fri, 03 Jan 2014 05:31:57 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id fs14si23059032wjc.134.2014.01.03.05.31.56 for ; Fri, 03 Jan 2014 05:31:57 -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; dkim=pass header.i=@mx.aol.com Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Vz4mi-0003AD-Bi for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 03 Jan 2014 13:27:32 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Vz4mh-0003A2-Fn for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 03 Jan 2014 13:27:31 +0000 Received: from omr-m06.mx.aol.com ([64.12.143.80]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Vz4md-0005DF-3h for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 03 Jan 2014 13:27:30 +0000 Received: from mtaout-mce01.mx.aol.com (mtaout-mce01.mx.aol.com [172.29.27.205]) by omr-m06.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 4664E700308C5 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2014 08:27:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from White (95-91-238-155-dynip.superkabel.de [95.91.238.155]) by mtaout-mce01.mx.aol.com (MUA/Third Party Client Interface) with ESMTPA id 70CA33800009A for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2014 08:27:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <73F7C5F579994A6D875B436D0CA6B35D@White> From: "Markus Vester" To: References: <8D0D5D2B851B331-43C-AE94@webmail-d241.sysops.aol.com> <8D0D5D361CC2379-1E98-B405@webmail-d279.sysops.aol.com> <52C6B80D.3070808@tiscali.co.uk> Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 14:27:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 12.0.1606 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V12.0.1606 x-aol-global-disposition: G DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20121107; t=1388755644; bh=laWVAE1iO3rSps+qOiCS1RLOfScApUPVos8dnkOKHRU=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=CsPhhqwPfc6k0RWTUYyLttGjV1lQW2ElWK7sY16yu5j22bCMK+t7wJo884q3bbOOz 3ZH1vIGK5Yz1cArt0j0qqHp1MIBOwHdhyFF2iJpYSZV5JT52GNBZR2482+7zktlZev KVJyKZRkwVrSBpQ7bDSPabz5+efSPM8Qe9rqmBiA= x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d1bcd52c6babb7296 X-AOL-IP: 95.91.238.155 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: 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. [...] 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 [64.12.143.80 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (markusvester[at]aol.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.5 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Scan-Signature: e9930714581255985cd8ec23e321b0b6 Subject: Re: LF: Re: 8.3 kHz Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0013_01CF088F.E7B0C160" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.9 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE, MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME 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 Dies ist eine mehrteilige Nachricht im MIME-Format. ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01CF088F.E7B0C160 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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.=20 Best 73, Markus (DF6NM) From: Gary - G4WGT=20 Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 2:15 PM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 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=20 PA1SDB, Peter wrote: My grabber at 8270 is loading. Lets see what QRM does here between = 8234 and 8305 Hz www.qsl.net/pa1sdb=20 (did just start it at 23h00) ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Markus Vester=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 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 -----Urspr=C3=BCngliche Mitteilung-----=20 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)=20 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.=20 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.=20 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,=20 - 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,=20 ... 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.=20 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. =20 Best 73, Markus (DF6NM) =20 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 ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01CF088F.E7B0C160 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Gary
 
great, thanks for pointing = this out. I=20 really like that side-by-side comparison. Assuming you are using = nonresonant=20 input circuitry and equal brightness settings, 8.27 kHz seems=20 a tad noisier than 8.97. But it=20 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= =20
Subject: Re: LF: Re: 8.3 kHz

Peter, LF etc,

I have also opened a = split=20 screen grabber looking at 8970Hz & 8270Hz to compare the noise = levels=20 etc.
You can access the grabber at my main grabber by a link "Go to = Sub 9kHz"=20 :-

http://myweb.t= iscali.co.uk/wgtaylor/grabber2.html

Or=20 its own dedicated page :-

http://myweb.ti= scali.co.uk/wgtaylor/Sub9kHz.html

73,=20 de Gary - G4WGT

PA1SDB, Peter wrote:
My grabber at 8270 is loading. Lets see what = QRM does=20 here between 8234 and 8305 Hz
 
(did just start it at 23h00)
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Markus Vester
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sent: Thursday, January 02, = 2014 1:12=20 PM
Subject: VLF: 8.3 kHz

Sorry, first=20 email was corrupted because I had forgotten to fill in the subject = line. 73,=20 Markus


-----Urspr=C3=BCngliche = Mitteilung-----
Von:=20 Markus Vester <markusvester@aol.com>
An: = rsgb_lf_group=20 <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Verschic= kt:=20 Do, 2 Jan 2014 2:07 pm

Dear=20 Sub-9kHz'ers,
 
Marco DD7PC=20 just made me aware of new German regulations, which also includes a = change=20 of the unallocated VLF range. The latest version of the = "Freqenzverordnung"=20 (FreqV)
http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/fr= eqv/gesamt.pdf
has=20 become effective already on August 27, 2013, and includes an = allocation of=20 8.3 to 9 kHz to the passive weather observing service (ie. lightning = locator=20 networks). Strictly speaking, this would make 8.97 kHz transmissions = illegal=20 in Germany (although there may be a loophole with national footnote = 2=20 regarding "Induktionsfunkanlagen"). If I recall right, a similar = legal=20 change in the UK had been announced in this group some time ago, = leading to=20 the installation of some grabber windows around 8.27 kHz.
 
In = practice,=20 radiated powers achievable by amateurs (milliwatts at best) are ten = orders=20 of magnitudes below to that emitted by lightning events (100 = megawatts). The=20 chance of amateur interference to a broadband lightning locator = would thus=20 be absolutely neglegible. Even if somebody happened to activate his = kite=20 within one kilometer from a detector station, any further effect of=20 interference would still be suppressed by redundancy in the = lightning=20 location network.
 
Still, for=20 publicly visible work (like claiming first contacts etc), we should = consider=20 moving below 8.3 kHz. Of course there are disadvantages, like
- = local=20 interference eg. from railway lines seems to be much denser and = stronger at=20 lower frequency,
- at same antenna voltage, radiated power will = be 1.4=20 dB less,
- more coil winding is required,
- acoustical = side-effect of=20 transmitting may be more disturbing,
... es nervt = einfach!!
 
But = then, one=20 should always embrace change... positive aspects may be
- lower = QRN=20 background in quiet locations,
- with common international = legislation,=20 the necessity of sub-9kHz NOV's in the UK might become = obsolescent,
-=20 EA5HVK might be motivated to provide an Opera version with flexible=20 frequency assignment.
 
In = my=20 location, I am mostly affected by 16.67 / 33.3 Hz modulated = interference=20 emitted by railway overhead lines, in addition to the usual 50 Hz = related=20 junk. To possibly identify a sweet spot with relatively low = interference, I=20 have temporarily shifted the frequency range of my faster VLF = grabber=20 windows:
http://df6nm.darc.de/vlf/vlfgrabber.htm
J= udging=20 by the first hours, near 8280 Hz may be significantly better than = 8270. But=20 interference comes and goes with time, so longer observations are = needed.=20 Note that the heavy interference between 11 and 12 UT could have = been=20 exacerbated by my noise blanker settings as it is much less severe = in the=20 wideband window. At this time, I would like to encourage other = receiver=20 operators to closely investigate their noise levels just below 8.3=20 kHz.
 
Best 73,
Markus (DF6NM)

 

No virus found in = this=20 message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4259 / = Virus=20 Database: 3658/6971 - Release Date: = 01/02/14


------=_NextPart_000_0013_01CF088F.E7B0C160--