Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-df03.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 9AD6338000089; Sat, 16 Jun 2012 16:41:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1SfznW-0000wL-AU for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 16 Jun 2012 21:40:42 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1SfznV-0000wC-UD for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 16 Jun 2012 21:40:41 +0100 Received: from cpsmtpb-ews06.kpnxchange.com ([213.75.39.9]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SfznU-0003nr-FB for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 16 Jun 2012 21:40:40 +0100 Received: from cpsps-ews09.kpnxchange.com ([10.94.84.176]) by cpsmtpb-ews06.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sat, 16 Jun 2012 22:40:40 +0200 Received: from CPSMTPM-CMT108.kpnxchange.com ([195.121.3.24]) by cpsps-ews09.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.17514); Sat, 16 Jun 2012 22:40:39 +0200 Received: from [192.168.2.13] ([62.131.23.134]) by CPSMTPM-CMT108.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.0.6002.18264); Sat, 16 Jun 2012 22:40:39 +0200 Message-ID: <4FDCEF47.9050805@kpnmail.nl> Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 22:40:39 +0200 From: pa3abk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <4FDCE611.7070004@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> In-Reply-To: <4FDCE611.7070004@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jun 2012 20:40:39.0431 (UTC) FILETIME=[4A538170:01CD4C00] X-RcptDomain: blacksheep.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Stefan, Can you indicate were you listen in your CQ call? At te mom you are becoming better. [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [213.75.39.9 listed in list.dnswl.org] X-Scan-Signature: 5c335215f1b3de26d890ee84d49616ce Subject: Re: LF: CW on 477.5 kHz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:443283712:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d40d74fdcef7c1a45 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Stefan, Can you indicate were you listen in your CQ call? At te mom you are becoming better. Jan/pa3abk On 16-6-2012 22:01, Stefan Schäfer wrote: > MF, > > Now my RX and active antenna is much better after adding a band filter > in front of the first gate. Most probably there was an overload of the > input before. Now DLF is 40 dB attenuated and the RX performs much > better. I can hear the crashes / sferics and see several traces, still > not sure if they are local QRM or a far field signal. > > My TX is ready as well. I will *call CQ on 477.5 kHz in CW and look > for skeds*! I can receive on 505 kHz (arround) as well but my filters > in the RX already attenuate the region by about 20 dB... Anyway worth > a try. > > Starting now! > > 73, Stefan/DK7FC -- pa3abk<-> dordrecht jo21it