Return-Path: Received: from mtain-dj09.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-dj09.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.19.187.145]) by air-mc02.mail.aol.com (v127_r1.1) with ESMTP id MAILINMC024-a8d64b880a661fe; Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:52:38 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mtain-dj09.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 15FEA3800009C; Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:52:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Nl4Ld-0007OS-73 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:51:33 +0000 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Nl4Lc-0007OJ-Rn for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:51:32 +0000 Received: from smtp815.mail.ukl.yahoo.com ([217.12.12.244]) by relay1.thorcom.net with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Nl4La-0007bn-7G for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:51:32 +0000 Received: (qmail 4832 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2010 17:51:24 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=btopenworld.com; h=DKIM-Signature:Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Message-ID:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MIMEOLE; b=MWSWgyK9vTFMs2eCjOwTf1OrjpOGqH2eWC32oncMND7ig10B1/WVmrSJ4CbN++gxvgtUMKHE0RZlq1XKVv1nvqPnUroX7t4ibdDp1UHJGashxp0kRhR1AJ3Dt8ETPJ4AnVxYFHrTYwHAgB4pk1/vfvqJMeLbqN3i8YqCmc7zBxg= ; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btopenworld.com; s=s1024; t=1267206684; bh=3RpiTofRI3Lhqwz5aTgOU/svEXXAN1QjCyzWdEgbb+M=; h=Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Message-ID:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MIMEOLE; b=vINoYCLe7wU5eTnH+eHGLv7Aisz3hTrRcTmczMxmQIoloxbLE3mi7cKBxP5oOCDpXB2vnR+cygfgTYyH44H5pYS25BYHSHxo2BOa87+VxatD+KBVbT0zSj2e8p8YJa9LbNZy3d25uz7dGWxaUW6eUVAsZlF8oPWhWWpxeNf9lew= Received: from JimPC (james.moritz@86.180.204.156 with login) by smtp815.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Feb 2010 17:51:24 +0000 GMT X-Yahoo-SMTP: Cxhli3eswBD1ozmtAojhjrja86kWx0Qm9tycD5QR1DKWrOLgjJcXkw-- X-YMail-OSG: 8R9Hl9oVM1kBW3sTsh6nrphpuWQYtnuajiUSaQXuomze87pBxQaa4jr7H87yXuMCE6SgCmmXwm0zCBEf6AjsSSAsLD2p_Dp64O50d7VS9gxCsNXUYBhCOXSj1T5XydouNhkVxm1pHR_AQJz1t6rWt.LcV_h6Nt78W4l0cvQuAKd3YiL9K65vm9qIHaAEFpCv87dm5LSGx5BAcDEXnedXuPsw0R8AgOxurZehtcgve..U1kS3wQg_6PuD7OFOa0wp X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Message-ID: From: "James Moritz" To: References: <931424D0B09442018D818E6AD1E5A63A@White> <9afca2641002260907k56b21a49p386d43b0be234436@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:51:24 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6002.18005 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6002.18005 DomainKey-Status: good (testing) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001 Subject: Re: LF: Re: 9kHz noise level Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME 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-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: mail_rly_antispam_dkim-d280.2 ; domain : btopenworld.com DKIM : pass x-aol-sid: 3039cdbc9d0e4b880a6449c4 X-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 Dear Markus, LF Group, I checked the noise level again during the daytime, and the noise level was about 6dB lower than last night, i.e. about 13uV/m per sqrtHz One possibility for the discrepancy between results is that the effective height of your antenna is reduced at VLF compared to the LF calibration point. In my transmitting vertical field strength measuring sessions on 500k, 136k and earlier 73k, the Heff of the same antenna works out consistently less as the frequency is reduced. I think this is due to increased "site loss" due to surrounding trees at the lower frequencies. H-field sensing loop antennas can be expected to be less affected. Of course, if there are no trees near your antenna, that theory is blown out of the water... Cheers, Jim Moritz 73 de M0BMU