Return-Path: Received: from mtain-mp03.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-mp03.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.193.71]) by air-da10.mail.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id MAILINDA104-86944d161f0e210; Sat, 25 Dec 2010 11:42:54 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mp03.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 0A72138000144; Sat, 25 Dec 2010 11:42:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1PWXBr-00030l-0b for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 25 Dec 2010 16:41:55 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1PWXBq-00030c-Ip for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 25 Dec 2010 16:41:54 +0000 Received: from 113-mo2-8.acn.waw.pl ([62.121.95.113] helo=paranoid.lipkowski.org) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1PWXBo-0008S9-PB for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 25 Dec 2010 16:41:54 +0000 Received: from paranoid.lipkowski.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by paranoid.lipkowski.org (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id oBPGfosF010254 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 25 Dec 2010 17:41:50 +0100 Received: from localhost (sq5bpf@localhost) by paranoid.lipkowski.org (8.13.7/8.13.6/Submit) with ESMTP id oBPGfoCi010251 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 2010 17:41:50 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: paranoid.lipkowski.org: sq5bpf owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 17:41:50 +0100 (CET) From: Jacek Lipkowski To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org In-Reply-To: <1293285583.9520.26.camel@pat-compaq-evo> Message-ID: References: <1293285583.9520.26.camel@pat-compaq-evo> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score-sq5bpf: -2.601 () BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 10.1.3.10 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,none Subject: Re: LF: Receivers vs Transmitters etc. = "Mal'isms" Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed 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-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1dc1474d161f08120d X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) On Sat, 25 Dec 2010, g4gvw wrote: > [...] I seem to recall that the earliest experimenters used far less > sensitive circuits and devices. [...] it's also quite remarkable that once the range was limited mostly by receiver sensitivity, while right now by the ability to reject qrm. SAQ was once in regular commercial service with New York with simple receivers at the other end (btw. anyone know what rx was used?), right now people in the States are struggling to receive the signal with the latest technology (dsp etc). think how much the qrm must have gone up... VY 73 Jacek / SQ5BPF