X-GM-THRID: 1243106121426475784 X-Gmail-Labels: rsgb lf Delivered-To: daveyxm@gmail.com Received: by 10.70.87.11 with SMTP id k11cs9099wxb; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:39:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.65.11 with SMTP id n11mr1740473fga.1185518380705; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:39:40 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id f6si192037nfh.2007.07.26.23.39.37; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:39:40 -0700 (PDT) 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) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1IEJRU-0000jn-0L for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:36:52 +0100 Received: from [193.82.59.130] (helo=relay2.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1IEJRT-0000je-EU for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:36:51 +0100 Received: from mk-filter-1-a-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com ([212.74.100.52]) by relay2.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <500kcs@uku.co.uk>) id 1IEJRS-0002Ff-Dv for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:36:51 +0100 X-Trace: 10416888-mk-filter-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com-B2C-$THROTTLED-DYNAMIC-CUSTOMER-DYNAMIC-IP X-SBRS: -3.0 X-RemoteIP: 80.225.101.18 X-Cloudmark-SP-Filtered: true X-Cloudmark-SP-Result: v=1.0 c=0 a=KrqWHD3rjhNp1I68cxwA:9 a=WOC_l3EnYCYVV5l_vCu8dH4iCL4A:4 a=wYxEAEyESik4SS9eiSMA:9 a=3hL0zM24EtUOn-Yp0WcA:7 a=dSsoSUW704AoPQrUxwbuAvTIobEA:4 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.16,586,1175468400"; d="scan'208,217";a="10416888" Received: from ppp-3-18.birm-b-1.access.uk.tiscali.com (HELO o) ([80.225.101.18]) by smtp.tiscali.co.uk with SMTP; 27 Jul 2007 07:35:21 +0100 Message-ID: <001601c7d018$81122130$1265e150@o> From: "Gw3UEP" <500kcs@uku.co.uk> To: References: <006901c7cfd4$8705a920$74c8e150@o> <002e01c7cfec$59c59160$05357ad5@w4o8m9> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:36:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,AWL=0.089,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 Subject: LF: Re: GW beacons / GI4DPE Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0013_01C7D020.E1079590" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE 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 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 871 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C7D020.E1079590 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Fb Jim - hrd you wrkg Fin - wrkd him just b4 u, 599 here. ----- Original Message -----=20 From: James Moritz=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 2:20 AM Subject: LF: GW beacons / GI4DPE Dear LF Group, I had good reception of beacon signals from GW4HXO, GW3UEP and GI4DPE = on Tuesday night / Wednesday morning - All the signals got up to a 569 = sort of level at times, but with a lot of fading. When it started = getting light, all 3 signals quickly faded into the noise. I have = attached a snippet of the spectrogram showing the signals from GW4HXO = (upper) and GI4DPE (lower) which illustrates the fading, with the time = markers at 5 minute intervals. For some reason, the fading on GW4HXO's = signal seems to be deeper than GI4DPE's, although both signals are = peaking at a similar level. I also had a good CW QSO with GI4DPE tonight starting about 2335utc; = this had similar fading but never really disappeared completely, and was = 569 most of the time for about 25 minutes. I am also hearing GW3UEP's = beacon signal, which again seems to have much more fading than Finbar's = signal did.=20 Cheers, Jim Moritz 73 de M0BMU ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C7D020.E1079590 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Fb Jim - hrd you wrkg Fin - wrkd him = just b4 u,=20 599 here.
----- Original Message -----=20
From: James Moritz
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= =20
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 2:20 AM
Subject: LF: GW beacons / GI4DPE

Dear LF Group,
 
I had  good reception of beacon = signals from=20 GW4HXO, GW3UEP and GI4DPE on Tuesday night / Wednesday morning - All the = signals=20 got up to a 569 sort of level at times, but with a lot of = fading. When it=20 started getting light, all 3 signals quickly faded into the noise. I = have=20 attached a snippet of the spectrogram showing the signals from GW4HXO = (upper)=20 and GI4DPE (lower) which illustrates the fading, with the time markers = at 5=20 minute intervals. For some reason, the fading on GW4HXO's signal seems = to be=20 deeper than GI4DPE's, although both signals are peaking at a similar=20 level.
 
I also had a good CW QSO with GI4DPE = tonight=20 starting about 2335utc; this had similar fading but never really = disappeared=20 completely, and was 569 most of the time for about 25 minutes. I am also = hearing=20 GW3UEP's beacon signal, which again seems to have much more fading than = Finbar's=20 signal did. 
 
Cheers, Jim Moritz
73 de M0BMU
------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C7D020.E1079590--