Return-Path: Received: from mtain-de12.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-de12.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.64.212]) by air-de08.mail.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id MAILINDE081-5ebe4d39daba1d1; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:12:58 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-de12.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id D0A8C38000586; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:12:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1PgMPA-0005v0-Rt for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 19:12:16 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1PgMPA-0005ur-FG for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 19:12:16 +0000 Received: from out1.ip04ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.240]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1PgMP8-0007ko-MX for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 19:12:16 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag4FANhpOU1cHYiN/2dsb2JhbACSKQOSOnO9CYVQBI5f X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,359,1291593600"; d="scan'208,217";a="321330578" Received: from unknown (HELO xphd97xgq27nyf) ([92.29.136.141]) by out1.ip04ir2.opaltelecom.net with SMTP; 21 Jan 2011 19:12:07 +0000 Message-ID: <004a01cbb99f$182a38f0$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> From: "mal hamilton" To: "rsgb" Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 19:12:05 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 Subject: LF: Alpha benchmark Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0047_01CBB99F.17A24440" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40,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 x-aol-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d40d44d39dab80948 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 ------=_NextPart_000_0047_01CBB99F.17A24440 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable vlf As a guide for those interested in VLF 9 Khz it would be useful if eac= h station could use the Alpha station on 11905 Khz as a benchmark for= quality of reception. and let us all know hown efficient their RX system is. In my case using an inv L 150 metres total length not resonated the re= port is minus 60 dB with a sig over noise of 25 dB. This seems an acce= ptable system for 9 Khz reception. I can do better by resonating the antenna, or using my 136 antenna sy= stem re-resonated for 9 Khz=20 I get the impression that at some locations receiving is a problem, fo= r various reasons including noise from being in the middle of a Urban= environment. Can we have some data. de mal/g3kev ------=_NextPart_000_0047_01CBB99F.17A24440 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
vlf
As a guide for those interested in VL= F 9 Khz it=20 would be useful if each station could use the Alpha station on 11905= Khz as a=20 benchmark for quality of reception.
and let us all know hown efficient th= eir RX system=20 is.
In my case using an inv L 150 metres= total length=20 not resonated the report is minus 60 dB with a sig over nois= e of 25=20 dB. This seems an acceptable system for 9 Khz reception.
I can do better by resonating the ant= enna,  or=20 using my 136 antenna system re-resonated for 9 Khz
I get the impression that at some loc= ations=20 receiving is a problem, for various reasons including noise from being= in the=20 middle of a Urban environment.
Can we have some data.
de mal/g3kev
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0047_01CBB99F.17A24440--