Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mg02.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 6C6CC38000099; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 17:11:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TshN8-0003Dg-4Y for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 22:10:14 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TshN7-0003DD-Ez for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 22:10:13 +0000 Received: from smtpout2.wanadoo.co.uk ([80.12.242.42] helo=smtpout.wanadoo.co.uk) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TshN5-0003d9-Kf for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 22:10:12 +0000 Received: from AGB ([2.26.16.164]) by mwinf5d22 with ME id la9q1k0053YP8Wy03a9qpm; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 23:09:51 +0100 Message-ID: From: "Graham" To: References: <8BC235B3FB844638A8EF40E775AF2A68@AGB> <50EC9599.4080704@freenet.de> In-Reply-To: <50EC9599.4080704@freenet.de> Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 22:09:49 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) 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: Thanks Wolf Ok the Tx uses qty-2 xtals , with a keyed mixer for full break-cw , no tune facility Assume 472.1 >> 472.3 is ok as well ? [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [80.12.242.42 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: ab7de7439a3fce0b74220375dc6f18e8 Subject: Re: LF: 472.5 KHz OK for Xtal CW qrg ? GB4FPR Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_018E_01CDEDEC.E090E770" 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 x-aol-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d60ca50ec99853688 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_018E_01CDEDEC.E090E770 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks Wolf=20 Ok the Tx uses qty-2 xtals , with a keyed mixer for full = break-cw , no tune facility=20 Assume 472.1 >> 472.3 is ok as well ? G. From: wolf_dl4yhf=20 Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 9:54 PM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Subject: Re: LF: 472.5 KHz OK for Xtal CW qrg ? GB4FPR Hi Graham, If you can pull the crystal a bit (which should be ok with a series C, = or a combination of L+C), it's ok. If you can only operate on exactly 472.5 kHz, potential QSO partners on = the continent may have a problem to receive you because there is a = permanent carrier on 472.5 kHz, sometimes quite strong in this part of = DL. Depending on the other side's filter bandwidth, a few dozen Hz away from = 472.5 kHz to either side will improve things. If I had to use a fixed xtal frequency, I'd go for 472.3 to 472.4 kHz. = Still close enough to be heared by lazy people (like myself) who 'park' = their receiver on 472.5 kHz with 500 Hz IF bandwidth while doing other = things in the shack :o) Cheers, Wolf . Am 08.01.2013 22:22, schrieb Graham: 472.5 KHz OK for Xtal CW qrg ? GB4FPR I did ask this a while ago, but to re-confirm suitable qrg = for xtal cw 472.5 KHz ? =20 Tnx -G.. ------=_NextPart_000_018E_01CDEDEC.E090E770 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks  Wolf
 
Ok   the  Tx uses  qty-2    = xtals =20 , with  a keyed  mixer  for  full  = break-cw  , no=20 tune facility
 
Assume   472.1  >>  472.3  is  = ok as=20 well ?
 
G.
 
 

From: wolf_dl4yhf
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 9:54 PM
Subject: Re: LF: 472.5 KHz OK for Xtal CW qrg ?=20 GB4FPR

Hi Graham,

If you can pull the = crystal a bit=20 (which should be ok with a series C, or a combination of L+C), it's=20 ok.

If you can only operate on exactly 472.5 kHz, potential QSO = partners=20 on the continent may have a problem to receive you because there is a = permanent=20 carrier on 472.5 kHz, sometimes quite strong in this part of=20 DL.

Depending on the other side's filter bandwidth, a few dozen = Hz away=20 from 472.5 kHz to either side will improve things.

If I had to = use a=20 fixed xtal frequency, I'd go for 472.3 to 472.4 kHz. Still close enough = to be=20 heared by lazy people (like myself) who 'park' their receiver on 472.5 = kHz with=20 500 Hz IF bandwidth while doing other things in the shack=20 :o)

Cheers,
  Wolf .

Am 08.01.2013 22:22, schrieb=20 Graham:
472.5  KHz  OK for  Xtal  CW   = qrg =20 ?  GB4FPR
 
I did  ask  this  a while  ago,  but = to =20 re-confirm  suitable   qrg  for  xtal =20 cw      472.5  KHz  ? 
 
Tnx -G..

------=_NextPart_000_018E_01CDEDEC.E090E770--