Return-Path: Received: from mtain-mp07.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-mp07.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.193.75]) by air-me06.mail.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id MAILINME062-8bb54d1e5d921d7; Fri, 31 Dec 2010 17:47:46 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mp07.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id D4029380000A5; Fri, 31 Dec 2010 17:47:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1PYnk9-0000JK-Ru for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 31 Dec 2010 22:46:41 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1PYnk8-0000JB-Ty for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 31 Dec 2010 22:46:40 +0000 Received: from nm9-vm0.bullet.mail.ukl.yahoo.com ([217.146.183.240]) by relay1.thorcom.net with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1PYnk8-00016k-MT for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 31 Dec 2010 22:46:40 +0000 Received: from [217.146.183.216] by nm9.bullet.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 31 Dec 2010 22:46:35 -0000 Received: from [217.146.183.61] by tm9.bullet.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 31 Dec 2010 22:46:35 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1030.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 31 Dec 2010 22:46:35 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 146943.7187.bm@omp1030.mail.ukl.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 91752 invoked by uid 60001); 31 Dec 2010 22:46:35 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.co.uk; s=s1024; t=1293835594; bh=5qLd0aYX1+bolix1SSWDICuR3fhEbPwuw93iyOhp2/k=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=VYSvTtWuD17bTeQMjukeape4wUgIEnIwV3cZzv269kQDQhYQaa0HgZ32iSSL+Umdm9sTBNDAvr1VP7YkLPnmXNDVxCrFG0tchf60qMy4l+GlUqidawbgcaLUKheiAugX9/PeHQ6Hs7jwifU34Uk0GuDRSu1DYg+DLXOuF6mYW10= DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.co.uk; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=4+YqieW8LU458GAfK8e6p6kXjAE8o23NM5Q01cvr30KJI3ImfQ9xZImRDySGeA2jnmTE4un5BZuZUPuyKGcAeidpKWmde0iN9ma8+5m3d4x/URZl99IfyqbjDJrLYf9z++NZxhNW4rQNnmJC+GsIMq4B7fcvTTnoPks5NiXYIKE=; Message-ID: <990390.86951.qm@web28105.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: GMCsF3wVM1nmATkV67vehSMXII4NVDUKITSCrzgd7A8MHVN AqmXFCETZrgMDO7cqT7lkg4x6HMFF9j4tuGZReikD1Mm4mFFAnojD7FEtop3 p70ZeyHTVztG7T8Ahmuvu2ibPbaMooylMjGXKL5SarrTBiZGjZ3LaA55ehcP gl7vtjqNaZLrlbCZkMiy0oN1LrhQEZhc7k5mN_qWwZIk_Xp9KxZ0mTAfz7da gcxR83nVgB9EPDFJ0KXaRfyqOrQ3kftPYvwBdIeZXZ0egKSbxvKvUmnv0eP5 F4TS6s7Wk_ShELdUEBiR5tfmAM0TyMiRv6pUno6woZYfA1qPwchgeDrr9fd0 6M5G4S4Syx1Y- Received: from [81.158.122.45] by web28105.mail.ukl.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 31 Dec 2010 22:46:34 GMT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/553 YahooMailWebService/0.8.107.285259 References: <11250.89514.qm@web28501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4D1DC897.2060606@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <76636.6973.qm@web28508.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <1567AC3A96624647ADC1F52EF1A1E625@JimPC> <732174.92691.qm@web28506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <6DEB3BAD63314CE598337148AF10CAE0@JimPC> <6FF03593-9C77-4457-B506-F03ABCFE9FFE@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 22:46:34 +0000 (GMT) From: M0FMT To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 DomainKey-Status: good (testing) Subject: Re: LF: VLF - G3XIZ Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-771934801-1293835594=:86951" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40,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 x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: mail_rly_antispam_dkim-d246.2 ; domain : yahoo.co.uk DKIM : pass x-aol-sid: 3039ac1dc14b4d1e5d9007c0 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 --0-771934801-1293835594=:86951 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yes congratulations from me also Chris. I'm only 11km away but not a peep= here.=20 Must have a six inch nail across my antenna. Happy=A0new year to all. =A073 es GL petefmt=20 I support www.NotSpotTelecom.Com your community Telco / ISP.=20 ________________________________ From: Gary - G4WGT To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Sent: Fri, 31 December, 2010 19:18:51 Subject: Re: LF: VLF - G3XIZ Hi Chris,=20 Well done & congratulations. As expected nothing seen here in IO83qo but= it was=20 interesting watching the progress & reading all the mail. 73,=20 Gary - G4WGT - IO83qo. LF MF Grabber=A0-=A0Web Site=A0-=A0Blogspot=A0-=A09kHz Grabber On 31 December 2010 18:23, Roger Lapthorn wrote: Congratulations Chris! I will have to add this new UK VLF record to my sub= -9kHz=20 webpage. If Jim can copy then I should be able to as well with a better se= t-up.=20 So pleased for you. Brilliant. > >73s >Roger G3XBM > >Sent from my iPod Touch 4g > > >On 31 Dec 2010, at 17:45, "James Moritz" = wrote: > >> Dear Chris, LF Group, >> >> The signal disappeared some time around 1520utc - the complete trace is= shown=20 >>in the attachment. >> >> I made an estimate of the field strength of your signal by injecting a= test=20 >>signal at a known EMF into the loop antenna, and comparing with the leve= l of=20 >>your signal. The received FS at the strongest point (around 1330utc) wor= ked out=20 >>to be 1.8uV/m. Taking the distance between our locations as 37km, your= ERP would=20 >>have been 87uW. The SNR at best was around 15dB, making the noise level= 0.32uV/m=20 >>in the FFT noise bandwidth of 2.1mHz, or a noise density of 7uV/m per sq= rt(Hz) >> >> Assuming a 50m vertical wire (heff ~ 25m), =A0Rrad of your antenna at= 8.97kHz=20 >>would be 880micro-ohms. Assuming 2.62dB directivity for an electrically= short=20 >>monopole compared to a dipole, and Iant of 200mA, the calculated value= of ERP=20 >>would then be 64uW. So there is reasonable agreement between these two= =20 >>calculations, the difference only being 1.3dB. >> >> Thanks for the tests, >> >> Cheers, Jim Moritz >> 73 de M0BMU >> > > --=20 =20 --0-771934801-1293835594=:86951 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yes congratulations from me also Chris. I'm only= 11km away but not a peep here. Must have a six inch nail across my antenn= a.
 
Happy new year to all.
 
73 es GL petefmt=20


I support www.NotSpotTelecom.Com your community Telco / ISP.=20


From: Gary - G4WGT <g4w= gt@tiscali.co.uk>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sen= t: Fri, 31 December, 2010 19:18:51
Subject: Re: LF: VLF - G3XIZ

Hi Chris= ,=20

Well done & congratulations. As expected nothing seen here in IO8= 3qo but it was interesting watching the progress & reading all the mai= l.

73,=20

Gary - G4WGT - IO83qo.





On 31 December 2010 18:23, Roger Lapthorn <rogerlapthorn@= gmail.com> wrote:
Congratulations Chris! I will ha= ve to add this new UK VLF record to my sub-9kHz webpage. If Jim can copy= then I should be able to as well with a better set-up. So pleased for you= . Brilliant.

73s
Roger G3XBM

Sent from my iPod Touch 4g

On 31 Dec 2010, at 17:45, "James Moritz" <james.moritz@btopenworld.com= > wrote:

> Dear Chris, LF Group,
>
> The sign= al disappeared some time around 1520utc - the complete trace is shown in= the attachment.
>
> I made an estimate of the field strength= of your signal by injecting a test signal at a known EMF into the loop an= tenna, and comparing with the level of your signal. The received FS at the= strongest point (around 1330utc) worked out to be 1.8uV/m. Taking the dis= tance between our locations as 37km, your ERP would have been 87uW. The SN= R at best was around 15dB, making the noise level 0.32uV/m in the FFT nois= e bandwidth of 2.1mHz, or a noise density of 7uV/m per sqrt(Hz)
>> Assuming a 50m vertical wire (heff ~ 25m),  Rrad of your antenn= a at 8.97kHz would be 880micro-ohms. Assuming 2.62dB directivity for an electrically short mono= pole compared to a dipole, and Iant of 200mA, the calculated value of ERP= would then be 64uW. So there is reasonable agreement between these two ca= lculations, the difference only being 1.3dB.
>
> Thanks for th= e tests,
>
> Cheers, Jim Moritz
> 73 de M0BMU
<= /DIV>> <Dec31_08.jpg>




--



--0-771934801-1293835594=:86951--