Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 193.82.116.20 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) client-ip=193.82.116.20;
From: G0MRF@aol.com
Message-ID: <d4f.fb60b16.34061a41@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:39:29 EDT
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: LF: 500 obs
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1188347969"
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Status: O


-------------------------------1188347969
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

 
Hi John GM4SLV
 
Conditions this morning must be slightly up as I can see feint traces of  the 
QRS from the current 5mW appearing on your grabber. That's the first time  
I've seen anything from my beacon in about 1 week. ( except from Hartmut) It  
appears to peak about 00.00 to 02.30 local.
I think I would need about 10mW and good conditions to make the  distance  
for a vy basic QSO. However, given the current 'success  rate' is only about 10% 
of nights I would certainly need some more ERP  to cover the 984km on an 
average day. I may try some late night 100mW tests as a  comparison, although that 
would be around 140W and not 7W of TX power.
If you use a particular frequency for your skeds with Finbar, I'll try some  
narrow band reception and see if I can dig your signal out of my local  noise. 
 Maybe your +13dB will be enough. It would be interesting as you say  to 
compare reception in rural and urban locations.
 
73
 
David  MRF  
 
======================================================
 
I am firmly of the opinion that an increase in ERP is needed too. Not
to  "compete" as such, but to lift signals far enough above the noise to
make  QSOs at least possible. Many people have high local noise floors
during the  day which prevents working the weak daytime signals from
longer  distances  and everyone has the very high atmospheric
noise level at  night, which is negating any increase in signal levels
brought on by  night-time conditions.


In a message dated 28/08/2007 19:47:12 GMT Standard Time,  
gm4slv@sighthound.demon.co.uk writes:

I am  firmly of the opinion that an increase in ERP is needed too. Not
to  "compete" as such, but to lift signals far enough above the noise to
make  QSOs at least possible. Many people have high local noise floors
during the  day which prevents working the weak daytime signals from
longer  distances  and everyone has the very high atmospheric
noise level at  night, which is negating any increase in signal levels
brought on by  night-time conditions.


-------------------------------1188347969
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3DUS-ASCII">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1561" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=3Drole_body style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY:=20=
Arial"=20
bottomMargin=3D7 leftMargin=3D7 topMargin=3D7 rightMargin=3D7><FONT id=3Drol=
e_document=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>
<DIV>
<DIV>Hi John GM4SLV</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Conditions this morning must be slightly up as I can see feint traces o=
f=20
the QRS from the current 5mW appearing on your grabber. That's the first tim=
e=20
I've seen anything from my beacon in about 1 week. ( except from Hartmut) It=
=20
appears to peak about 00.00 to 02.30 local.</DIV>
<DIV>I think I would need about 10mW and good conditions to make the=20
distance&nbsp; for a vy basic QSO. However, given the current 'success=20
rate'&nbsp;is only about 10% of nights&nbsp;I would certainly need some more=
 ERP=20
to cover the 984km on an average day. I may try some late night 100mW tests=20=
as a=20
comparison, although that would be around 140W and not 7W of TX power.</DIV>
<DIV>If you use a particular frequency for your skeds with Finbar, I'll try=20=
some=20
narrow band reception and see if I can dig your signal out of my local=20
noise.&nbsp; Maybe your +13dB will be enough. It would be interesting as you=
 say=20
to compare reception in rural&nbsp;and urban locations.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>73</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>David&nbsp; MRF&nbsp; </DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I am firmly of the opinion that an increase in ERP is needed too. Not<B=
R>to=20
"compete" as such, but to lift signals far enough above the noise to<BR>make=
=20
QSOs at least possible. Many people have high local noise floors<BR>during t=
he=20
day which prevents working the weak daytime signals from<BR>longer=20
distances&nbsp; and everyone has the very high atmospheric<BR>noise level at=
=20
night, which is negating any increase in signal levels<BR>brought on by=20
night-time conditions.<BR></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 28/08/2007 19:47:12 GMT Standard Time,=20
gm4slv@sighthound.demon.co.uk writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px"><FONT=20
  style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=
=3D2>I am=20
  firmly of the opinion that an increase in ERP is needed too. Not<BR>to=20
  "compete" as such, but to lift signals far enough above the noise to<BR>ma=
ke=20
  QSOs at least possible. Many people have high local noise floors<BR>during=
 the=20
  day which prevents working the weak daytime signals from<BR>longer=20
  distances&nbsp; and everyone has the very high atmospheric<BR>noise level=20=
at=20
  night, which is negating any increase in signal levels<BR>brought on by=20
  night-time conditions.<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></FONT>   </BODY></HTML>

-------------------------------1188347969--