Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mh04.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 43EAF38000083; Sat, 8 Sep 2012 19:17:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TAUGG-0002By-R8 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 09 Sep 2012 00:16:24 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TAUGG-0002Bp-A1 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 09 Sep 2012 00:16:24 +0100 Received: from qmta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.48]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TAUGE-0006sj-96 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 09 Sep 2012 00:16:23 +0100 Received: from omta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.27]) by qmta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id wn511j00C0bG4ec55nGPBW; Sat, 08 Sep 2012 23:16:23 +0000 Received: from JAYDELL ([71.234.119.9]) by omta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id wnGC1j00c0CFS1j3PnGCLB; Sat, 08 Sep 2012 23:16:13 +0000 Message-ID: <003a01cd8e17$f3e02f00$6401a8c0@JAYDELL> From: To: References: <12fe8.4c562f1.3d7d1434@aol.com> <504BC546.2000105@gmail.com> <504BCD96.2010901@freenet.de> Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2012 19:16:18 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 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: Does anyone know if they will be operating during the overnight period? Jay W1VD WD2XNS WE2XGR/2 ----- Original Message ----- From: "wolf_dl4yhf" To: Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2012 6:58 PM Subject: Re: LF: Re: Re: Re: DK0SWF antenna [...] 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 [76.96.62.48 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (jrusgrove[at]comcast.net) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: 7ab87d4d3ea1d9dcb73a78e83fe4d608 Subject: Re: LF: Re: Re: Re: DK0SWF antenna Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response 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=0.3 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_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-sid: 3039ac1d60d8504bd20016a2 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Does anyone know if they will be operating during the overnight period? Jay W1VD WD2XNS WE2XGR/2 ----- Original Message ----- From: "wolf_dl4yhf" To: Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2012 6:58 PM Subject: Re: LF: Re: Re: Re: DK0SWF antenna > John, > > you wrote: > > > > Calling CQ ad infinitum, while also 60Hz higher I also copy DF0WD calling CQ too. I assume neither > station can hear each other? > < > > Of course I could hear DK0SWF calling CQ about 100 Hz away. But I had given up, finally, after > trying for the umpteenth time to get a response from them. As Mal and others already noted, their > signal was incredibly strong, but they must have had a very, very serious problem with their > receiver. Maybe they should have asked the SWF (Südwestfunk) to close down some of the > transmitters in their vincinity ? Oh well. Hope the pilots in Poland were not too irritated by the > powerful signal, which even beat DK7FC's signal by far ! > > Despite all the trouble, I was positively surprised to make a QSO with OM1II, whom I heard earlier > on, but didn't want to add to the confusion on the semi-official "calling frequency" (472.5 kHz). > Also thanks to G3KEV, DK8KW, DJ2LF, and DF5QF for the nice QSOs. OZ7FOC was partly audible, but > difficult tonight. > > 73, > Wolf DL4YHF / DF0WD > > >> >> While I applaud any new MF activity, I wonder why, if DK0SWF are unable to receive efficiently on >> their antenna, they call CQ? >> >> Surely if this is a "one time" opportunity to transmit from "SWF" and reception is impossible >> they could do something else with the time on the air. A WSPR transmission for the same length of >> time would gather much more usefuly information than calling CQ with no hope of hearing any >> replies? >> >> John >> GM4SLV >> IP90gg >> Shetland Isles >> >> >> >> > >