Received-SPF: neutral (gmail.com: 193.82.116.20 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org)
Message-ID: <200603311839550854.021DC57E@smtp.wanadoo.fr>
In-Reply-To: <000001c654b6$49efa120$cada380a@acer5gi5q0ubzj>
References: <000001c654b6$49efa120$cada380a@acer5gi5q0ubzj>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 18:39:55 +0200
From: "John RABSON" <john.rabson@wanadoo.fr>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org, rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Cc: peter.kirby@rsgb.org.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: LF: Rugby LORAN measurement?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Status: O

Do you know the time of day when there will be a break, please?  I do not=
 expect to notice it in Burgundy but would like to see if I'm wrong.

73
John F/G3PAI

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 31/03/2006 at 13:28 John W Gould wrote:

>Given that there may be a short break in LORAN transmission this coming
>Tuesday I thought that I would post an e-mail requesting measurement of=
 the
>background noise floor, whilst the Rugby transmitter is off, and a further
>measurement when the Rugby LORAN signal re-appears.  It would be helpful=
 if
>this could be done in a number of locations around the UK, especially=
 where
>the interference is significant, so that we can get a better picture as to
>the extent of the problem.  Unfortunately, I will be travelling on Tuesday
>so won't be able to participate from my QTH in Newport Pagnell.  
>
>I would like to be able to compare results from a number of sources, so it
>may be best to calculate the difference between the noise level in say a
>500Hz bandwidth with and without the Rugby LORAN transmission and thus
>compare S/N.  The other measurement that is probably worth doing is to
>measure the S/N of one of the lines. Any other suggestions?
>
>On the complaint front the RSGB made an official approach last year and=
 had
>a reply from Trinity House.  However, at the time it looked as if the NELS
>might close many of its LORAN transmitters at the end of 2005.  Given that
>this didn't happen, and the continuing nature of the problem from the=
 Rugby
>transmitter, I feel that we now need to follow-up our initial approach,=
 and
>perhaps widen our concerns, given that a proposal for an Amateur Secondary
>allocation at 136kHz is on the agenda for WRC07. 
>
>73 John, G3WKL
>RSGB HF Manager