Return-Path: Received: from rly-df06.mx.aol.com (rly-df06.mail.aol.com [172.19.156.19]) by air-df03.mail.aol.com (v124.15) with ESMTP id MAILINDF034-5584a8b167950; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:01:05 -0400 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-df06.mx.aol.com (v124.15) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINDF063-5584a8b167950; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:00:45 -0400 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1MdVmZ-0003j8-4v for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 21:59:51 +0100 Received: from [83.244.159.144] (helo=relay3.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1MdVmY-0003iz-L9 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 21:59:50 +0100 Received: from imr-ma06.mx.aol.com ([64.12.78.142]) by relay3.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1MdVmR-0004Bx-UF for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 21:59:46 +0100 Received: from imo-ma03.mx.aol.com (imo-ma03.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.138]) by imr-ma06.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n7IKxZfc024341 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:59:35 -0400 Received: from G0MRF@aol.com by imo-ma03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.5.) id l.d69.4993fb03 (30737) for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:59:34 -0400 (EDT) From: G0MRF@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:59:33 EDT To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5047 X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: G0MRF@aol.com X-Spam-Score: 0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,NO_REAL_NAME=0.55 Subject: Re: LF: 500kHz qrg range Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1250629173" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.1 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE, 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 X-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 -------------------------------1250629173 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 18/08/2009 20:19:45 GMT Standard Time, Dennis.Hennig@gmx.de writes: So I ask myself and now You :) , would You say it's important to keep the full rx range from 495kHz to 510kHz and pay the price of a worse stopband attenuation, or do You think, it's unlikely to hear any transmission at the band corners? Sounds like a very useful design. Tunable inductors would allow peaking at a particular frequency. May also allow the passband to be adjusted to reject a partically troublesome source of 'local' QRM. Thanks David -------------------------------1250629173 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 18/08/2009 20:19:45 GMT Standard Time,=20 Dennis.Hennig@gmx.de writes:

So I=20 ask myself and now You :) , would You say it's important to keep the ful= l rx=20 range from 495kHz to 510kHz and pay the price of a worse stopband attenu= ation,=20 or do You think, it's unlikely to hear any transmission at the band=20 corners?

Sounds like a very useful design.

Tunable inductors would allow peaking at a particular frequency. May= also=20 allow the passband to be adjusted to reject a partically troublesome sourc= e of=20 'local' QRM.

Thanks

David

-------------------------------1250629173--