Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.142.105 with SMTP id rv9csp256418igb; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 07:42:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.74.203 with SMTP id w11mr36916076wiv.27.1403016156092; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 07:42:36 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id i6si7879354wiy.1.2014.06.17.07.42.35 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 07:42:35 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: none (google.com: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=195.171.43.25; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) smtp.mail=owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1WwtzY-0005fl-Il for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 15:04:04 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1WwtzY-0005fc-AL for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 15:04:04 +0100 Received: from nina.ucs.mun.ca ([134.153.232.76]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WwtzS-00038b-8N for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 15:04:03 +0100 Received: from plato.ucs.mun.ca (plato.ucs.mun.ca [134.153.232.153]) by nina.ucs.mun.ca (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id s5HE3st0004618 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:33:54 -0230 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:33:54 -0230 (NDT) From: jcraig@mun.ca X-X-Sender: jcraig@plato.ucs.mun.ca To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <8D157BAEE079628-1DDC-44E0@webmail-d177.sysops.aol.com> <809D750871FA8E44B0A6692392A1F12469D0B7@servigilant.VIGILANT.local> <53A03BC4.5050109@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) 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: Hi Roelof, Which NDB's in Newfoundland have you heard? I am sending a CW/QRSS10 beacon on 477.7 kHz. 73 Joe VO1NA [...] Content analysis details: (-1.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [134.153.232.76 listed in list.dnswl.org] -1.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: b77892ad90d0261eaf071f4f6cf31464 Subject: Re: LF: The summer hole... Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.9 required=5.0 tests=CELL_PHONE_BOOST,NO_REAL_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 Hi Roelof, Which NDB's in Newfoundland have you heard? I am sending a CW/QRSS10 beacon on 477.7 kHz. 73 Joe VO1NA On Tue, 17 Jun 2014, Roelof Bakker wrote: > Hello Stefan, > > I am missing the patience to monitoring 137 kHz and 470 kHz all the time. > However, I have been monitoring every night reception of Canadian NDB's for > years. > So far Summer reception has been excellent and every night there has been > propagation from Newfoundland to the Netherlands. Th reception window is > quite narrow now and is best between 01:30 to 02:30 UTC. At times signals > have been quite strong (I am talking about aural copy). > > So you might try to contact Joe, VO1NA with one of the faster QRSS modes for > a real time QSO! > Greyline propagation is good now and I do receive stations that are much > rarer in winter! > It might also be interesting to note which band is better at this time of the > year 2200 m or 630 m! > My guess is 2200 m, but I can be completely wrong. > > 73, > Roelof Bakker, PAoRDT >