Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20020 invoked from network); 9 Mar 1999 01:48:23 -0000 Received: from magnus.plus.net.uk (HELO magnus.force9.net) (195.166.128.27) by medusa.plus.net.uk with SMTP; 9 Mar 1999 01:48:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 21776 invoked from network); 9 Mar 1999 01:50:06 -0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com (194.75.130.70) by magnus.plus.net.uk with SMTP; 9 Mar 1999 01:50:06 -0000 Received: from troy.blacksheep.org ([194.75.183.50] ident=root) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 2.04 #3) id 10KBfu-0003Sm-01; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 01:51:14 +0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: (from root@localhost) by troy.blacksheep.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA08525 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 01:47:11 GMT Received: from post.thorcom.com (root@post.unica.co.uk [194.75.183.70]) by troy.blacksheep.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA08442 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 01:35:12 GMT From: G0MRF@aol.com X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com ([198.81.17.66]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 2.04 #3) id 10KBTz-0001vh-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 01:38:55 +0000 Received: from G0MRF@aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (IMOv19.3) id lUXYa12655 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 20:32:57 +1900 (EST) Message-ID: <99638c68.36e47a49@aol.com> Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 20:32:57 EST To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: LF: Weekend report Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0.i for Windows 95 sub 170 Sender: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org In a message dated 08/03/99 09:21:32 GMT, G4GVC writes: << Is anyone else getting alarmed at the number of stations (in all countries) who are starting to appear on the band with good signals but mediocre or even atrocious receive systems? It's relatively easy to build (or buy, now) an effective LF transmitter, but how can we encourage people to work on their receive systems and ensure they can receive as well as they radiate? An interesting challenge in education for sure. >> Yes, but I do have some sympathy as I've been there myself. In my case, my receiver was deaf as a post at 136. In fact from measurements the Icom 756 is an order of magnitude worse than other receivers. Even my first attempt with a receive converter suffered from excessive local oscillator leakage which caused de-sense. Thankfully, with help from this reflector, the problems were identified and overcome and now it's mainly local noise and antennas which limit performance. Both DF2PY and LX1PD have very strong TX signals, and like many of us in the early days, would probably be beaconing away for hours for reports if band occupancy was lower. (Actually it must seem like that for them) I guess the only solution is for local stations to disseminate information and encourage improvements in RX performance. I note that neither are on the reflector. The problems across the channel seem to be related to noise and intermod's rather than sensitivity perhaps some of the noise reduction techniques that have been developed could be added to a web site so that this information could be more widely accessed. We may also need a translation or two so that any techniques developed become pan-European At least hard copy could be posted to those not on the net! I suppose after a reasonable period of time it's going to be: pse QSY frequency in use. Oh dear, sounds like CQWW! 73 David