Message-ID: <003b01bed3b4$4963bdc0$95daac3e@default>
From: "Alan Melia" <Alan.Melia@btinternet.com>
To: "rsgb_lf_group" <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Subject: LF: DCF39 and receiver sensitivity
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 21:02:34 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

Thanks for the comments on my suggestion. I think there is a slight
misunderstanding, due to Dick's fine work on absolute field strength
measurement. I was not suggesting that we could get any measurement of DCF39
field strength by this means. I was suggesting that we could set up a
comparison of receiver sensitivities, using DCF39 as a reasonably constant
source (for details of how constant see Dick's latest posting), that is
available to everyone in Europe whatever their receiver set-up is. What I
was aiming at was avoiding people like Alain listening on 136 hearing
nothing and assuming there is no activity, when in fact it is their
receiver/aerial capability which is their problem. I don't expect it to be
quite as much use to the experienced operators who have their regular
contacts to provide their data. Also the interest initially is not in 3-4dB
changes more probably 20-30dB (I suspect that is my deficit at the moment)
I take Wolf's point that the aerial could be improved, as his was, and the
DCF39 signal reduced. I wonder whether this might be less of a problem at
greater distances from the transmitter. Wolf is so close he can probably
hear the operator breathing Hi.

I look forward to seeing the 'professional' measurements posted to a web
site soon?
(please!)
73 de Alan G3NYK
Alan.Melia@btinternet.com