Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27639 invoked from network); 30 Apr 2001 23:38:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO murphys-inbound.servers.plus.net) (212.159.14.225) by 10.226.25.101 with SMTP; 30 Apr 2001 23:38:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 776 invoked from network); 30 Apr 2001 23:38:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by murphys with SMTP; 30 Apr 2001 23:38:31 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.16 #2) id 14uN8z-0001LJ-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Tue, 01 May 2001 00:31:53 +0100 Received: from tomts13-srv.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.34]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #2) id 14uN8y-0001LE-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 01 May 2001 00:31:52 +0100 Received: from server1 ([209.226.189.33]) by tomts13-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.16 201-229-121-116-20010115) with SMTP id <20010430233051.ZIBK6402.tomts13-srv.bellnexxia.net@server1> for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 19:30:51 -0400 Message-ID: <003401c0d1cd$60e3da20$0a00a8c0@ThreeLakes.ca> From: "Larry Kayser" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <26767.200104301458@gemini> Subject: LF: Re: Wolf Tests Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 19:29:16 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: Jim: > I would think the fact that Larry is physically relatively close to CFH > makes it unlikely that his signal would cause QRM to the users of > CFH - I suppose there is an area around Larry's QTH where his > signal is strong enough to cause problems for CFH reception; but > since CFH is much higher power, and the signal bandwidth quite > narrow, this area must be very small. Since Larry is inland of CFH, > I think it is unlikely that his signal is ever going to be a problem to > the Canadian navy, even on an adjacent frequency. There is more > likely to be a difficulty for them from European stations on this side > of the Atlantic, where CFH is relatively weak. Interesting. You must be thinking of real interference. My concern is not with real interference it is with the perception of interference and what goes with that kind of possible issue. An untimely or unguarded comment - just the things that could put a large spanner in the works. Larry VA3LK