Return-Path: Received: from rly-df04.mx.aol.com (rly-df04.mail.aol.com [172.19.156.17]) by air-df04.mail.aol.com (v123.4) with ESMTP id MAILINDF042-54849f9b13127f; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:10:05 -0400 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-df04.mx.aol.com (v123.4) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINDF047-54849f9b13127f; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:09:56 -0400 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1LzWwJ-0001S8-SQ for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:08:39 +0100 Received: from [83.244.159.144] (helo=relay3.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1LzWwJ-0001Rz-EN for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:08:39 +0100 Received: from cavuit01.kulnet.kuleuven.be ([134.58.240.43]) by relay3.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1LzWwI-000062-Nu for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:08:39 +0100 Received: from smtps02.kuleuven.be (smtpshost02.kulnet.kuleuven.be [134.58.240.75]) by cavuit01.kulnet.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 234C47B804E for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:08:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from webmail2.cc.kuleuven.ac.be (webmail2.cc.kuleuven.ac.be [134.58.242.4]) by smtps02.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA850F3862 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:08:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: by webmail2.cc.kuleuven.ac.be (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 290CC5A04; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:08:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 185.165-240-81.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be (185.165-240-81.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be [81.240.165.185]) by webmail4.kuleuven.be (Horde MIME library) with HTTP; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:08:29 +0200 Message-ID: <20090430160829.yvxzg32tlfs4088k@webmail4.kuleuven.be> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:08:29 +0200 X-Kuleuven: This mail passed the K.U.Leuven mailcluster From: Rik Strobbe To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <000e01c9c970$042bcfb0$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920> In-Reply-To: <000e01c9c970$042bcfb0$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.1.2) X-Originating-IP: 81.240.165.185 X-KULeuven-Information: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven X-KULeuven-Scanned: Found to be clean X-KULeuven-Envelope-From: rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.be X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,none Subject: Re: LF: RX NOISE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none 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 X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) How many UK stations are running the current 10 W ERP limit ? Since the increase from 1W to 10W I have noticed only 1 station that =20 became 10dB stronger. I have made QSO's with UK stations running as low as 10mW ERP. I am running about 2.5W ERP and so far I haven't had any problem in =20 being heard by UK stations. And last winter I received RX report from =20 all over Europe and beyond (best RX report came from 3500km, giving me =20 a solid 559). I am not sure that an increase to 20W ERP will have much effect. I you're going to ask ODCOM for a favour it might be better to ask =20 some extra kHz, what would give space for other (wideband) modes. 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T Quoting mal hamilton : > Nearly every 500 Khz operator that I communicate with seems to have =20 > a Noise problem on Receive, therefore in order to overcome this =20 > common noise complaint I would suggest a request to OFCOM for an =20 > increase in ERP at the TX end to 20W erp. This hopefully would give =20 > a better signal over noise at the RX end. > I recently conducted some tests by reducing my TX erp until the =20 > signal disappeared into the noise at the RX end and was surprised by =20 > how much power was needed to overcome this noise problem. I checked =20 > two UK grabbers as well and and the results were poor. > The mode used was normal CW. > 73 de mal/g3kev >