Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mb02.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 518A23800008B; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 04:23:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1T9tos-0002MW-DC for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:21:42 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1T9tor-0002MN-Uy for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:21:41 +0100 Received: from out1.ip06ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.242]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1T9top-0008Cz-MA for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:21:40 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag0QALWkSVBcHYsm/2dsb2JhbABFijWwFAKBBoEIghsFAQEFCAEBAyUBIwITGQEBAwUCAQMRBAEBCiUUAQQaBhYIBhMKAQICAQGIA7wUixGBW4E6gxwDiBuFQ5gYgmM X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,384,1344207600"; d="scan'208";a="549989594" Received: from host-92-29-139-38.as13285.net (HELO xphd97xgq27nyf) ([92.29.139.38]) by out1.ip06ir2.opaltelecom.net with SMTP; 07 Sep 2012 09:21:38 +0100 Message-ID: <000501cd8cd1$cccec990$0501a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> From: "mal hamilton" To: References: <16F7F8A490BE4CE6A7EEBD7383D209D0@AGB> <5047DA4A.8040807@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <504873F6.4040905@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <001901cd8c3f$8c66d470$0501a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <5048D5F6.9080609@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:21:36 -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: 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 I have an efficient antenna system for LF es MF and that does the trick. On these low bands you need as much elevated wire as possible for reliable results. Unless a person is restricted for space the use of Micro probes, Ferrite sticks, Match sticks, are a poor choice, Wire Loops as large as possible would be a better compromise. In my opinion Vertical antennas as high as possible are best for LF es MF resonated for the frequency of interest. Use insulated radials preferably elevated above ground or lying on the ground but not bare wire buried The above applies to Receive as well as Transmit. Some active stations although transmitting a good signal are having difficulty RECEIVING properly. and are normally in BROADCAST mode(BEACON MODE ) getting reports via Internet. I prefer QSO mode to get my report via Radio in real time. [...] 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 [62.24.128.242 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FSL_XM_419 Old OE version in X-Mailer only seen in 419 spam -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 FSL_UA FSL_UA 0.0 AXB_XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_024C2 AXB_XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_024C2 X-Scan-Signature: 32d4aaaf019758ff5a0d8e92eec683e6 Subject: Re: LF: DK7FC OFF THE AIR ? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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-sid: 3039ac1d60165049af0473f3 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Stefan I have an efficient antenna system for LF es MF and that does the trick. On these low bands you need as much elevated wire as possible for reliable results. Unless a person is restricted for space the use of Micro probes, Ferrite sticks, Match sticks, are a poor choice, Wire Loops as large as possible would be a better compromise. In my opinion Vertical antennas as high as possible are best for LF es MF resonated for the frequency of interest. Use insulated radials preferably elevated above ground or lying on the ground but not bare wire buried The above applies to Receive as well as Transmit. Some active stations although transmitting a good signal are having difficulty RECEIVING properly. and are normally in BROADCAST mode(BEACON MODE ) getting reports via Internet. I prefer QSO mode to get my report via Radio in real time. de mal/g3kev ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefan Schäfer" To: Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 4:57 PM Subject: Re: LF: DK7FC OFF THE AIR ? Yes Mal, sorry, the program didn't display your decodes on my PC. Don't know why. +3 dB is very remarkable for that distance. Thanks for monitoring. 73, cul, Stefan Am 06.09.2012 16:54, schrieb mal hamilton: > Stefan > I copied you on Opera around 2100 at +3 dB as reported via BS last nite > de mal/g3kev > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stefan Schäfer" > To: > Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 9:59 AM > Subject: Re: LF: DK7FC OFF THE AIR ? > > > >> Hi G.., MF, >> >> Am 06.09.2012 01:15, schrieb Graham: >> >>> [...]have you any luck with some excel macros to plot maps >>> etc ? >>> >> No, i'm no expert on this. Experts will tell you that you mustn't use >> Excel but Origin instead or so :-) >> >> Here is a summary of the stations who received something on 477 kHz >> yesterday, showing the best S/N obtained. Thanks again. >> >> 73, Stefan/DK7FC >> >> >> >