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 w0MIGvZi025884 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:17:00 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1edgY2-0001GP-4o for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 18:10:22 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1edgY0-0001GG-73 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 18:10:20 +0000 Received: from rgout0803.bt.lon5.cpcloud.co.uk ([65.20.0.150]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1edgXx-0005qN-AO for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 18:10:18 +0000 X-OWM-Source-IP: 86.186.117.49 (GB) X-OWM-Env-Sender: alan.melia@btinternet.com X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=12/50,refid=2.7.2:2018.1.22.174216:17:12.455,ip=,rules=__HAS_MSGID, __SANE_MSGID, MSGID_32HEX_LC, INVALID_MSGID_NO_FQDN, __MSGID_32HEX, __HAS_FROM, __FRAUD_WEBMAIL_FROM, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __TO_NO_NAME, __REFERENCES, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __MIME_VERSION, __CT, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN, __CTE, __HAS_X_PRIORITY, __HAS_MSMAIL_PRI, __HAS_X_MAILER, USER_AGENT_OE, __OUTLOOK_MUA_1, __USER_AGENT_MS_GENERIC, __ANY_URI, __FRAUD_BODY_WEBMAIL, __URI_NO_WWW, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE, __FORWARDED_MSG, __NO_HTML_TAG_RAW, BODY_SIZE_1500_1599, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, __MIME_TEXT_P1, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY, HTML_00_01, HTML_00_10, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS, __FRAUD_WEBMAIL, MSG_THREAD, LEGITIMATE_SIGNS, __OUTLOOK_MUA, __PHISH_SPEAR_STRUCTURE_1, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS, __MIME_TEXT_P, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK, REFERENCES, NO_URI_HTTPS, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS Received: from gnat (86.186.117.49) by rgout08.bt.lon5.cpcloud.co.uk (9.0.019.21-1) (authenticated as alan.melia@btinternet.com) id 5A5E200C0088F4DE for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 18:10:16 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btinternet.com; s=btcpcloud; t=1516644617; bh=qGjzmJnBawFHvwuZVuJsKeY7NMNHYWj5xz6+45Hq/o4=; h=Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:X-Mailer; b=TFX9ZDHbGFBjcE7qczEa6HBO4zVkysjT/MqrEUTbk67a+JUIMBxij2cAOEiteCVDMtlnPGlMkK7xqXhNJwb4sefCfEE5vh9ClRZKlgb7LM6PiAVk4V9WZ4IyfUiAoX+uPhNcgXKSRdjDehwXAcM8cNmbCgA+rzkH05LB2Gan6qI= Message-ID: From: "Alan Melia" To: References: Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 18:02:44 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 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: Hi Martin, I would estimate the field strength from DCF39 in your area is about 0.5mV/m (from measurements done by PA0SE in the UK) and from your data that gives about 1.5uV at the RX input as the level of the noise. If that is in an SSB bandwidth that is not bad. I remember the noise plotted on my CFH measurements in around 2002 was in this area but in a 300Hz bw, on the AOR7030 (Remembering WSPR s/n is related to a 2.3kHz bw if I remember right) My minimum signal detection using a waterfall on the audio was 5nV (rx bw not relevant) but 0.3Hz bin size using a good sig-gen. I guess this was little more than 1 to 1.5dB above the noise. I think it was probably quieter here in East Anglia 15 years ago than it i now. [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Scan-Signature: 33d261536bb1467bb13d5764461d5ec4 Subject: Re: LF: 136kHz - this is how badmy system is! Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type=response 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=1.6 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK 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 Hi Martin, I would estimate the field strength from DCF39 in your area is about 0.5mV/m (from measurements done by PA0SE in the UK) and from your data that gives about 1.5uV at the RX input as the level of the noise. If that is in an SSB bandwidth that is not bad. I remember the noise plotted on my CFH measurements in around 2002 was in this area but in a 300Hz bw, on the AOR7030 (Remembering WSPR s/n is related to a 2.3kHz bw if I remember right) My minimum signal detection using a waterfall on the audio was 5nV (rx bw not relevant) but 0.3Hz bin size using a good sig-gen. I guess this was little more than 1 to 1.5dB above the noise. I think it was probably quieter here in East Anglia 15 years ago than it i now. I hope that helps (saves you ripping your station apart :-)) ) Alan G3NYK ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Evans" To: Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 4:51 PM Subject: Re: LF: 136kHz - this is how badmy system is! > > Watching Roger's adventures on 136kHz, I thought I'd go take a look and I > wondered - > > DCF39 is about 50dB above the noise at 16:44UTC. > > I'm using a 150ft inverted L, untuned, stuffed directly into an Elad > FDM-S2 SDR. > > Decoded G3XIZ, G4FTC, G8HUH & G4GIR between 16:12 and 16:44. > > What does this say about my setup? > > Is it deaf/average/ok? > > How far above the noise is DCF39 in an optimised "good" setup? > > Anyone tell me? > > Martin GW3UCJ Swansea. >