Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-me05.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 5896238000074; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:15:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TStUr-00068M-Am for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:51:33 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TStUq-00068D-RZ for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:51:32 +0000 Received: from mout2.freenet.de ([195.4.92.92]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (UNKNOWN:AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TStUp-0001Gi-8J for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:51:31 +0000 Received: from [195.4.92.142] (helo=mjail2.freenet.de) by mout2.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (port 25) (Exim 4.76 #1) id 1TStUn-0000aN-Q8 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:51:29 +0100 Received: from localhost ([::1]:41671 helo=mjail2.freenet.de) by mjail2.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (Exim 4.76 #1) id 1TStUl-0005nw-CZ for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:51:27 +0100 Received: from [195.4.92.26] (port=41728 helo=16.mx.freenet.de) by mjail2.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (Exim 4.76 #1) id 1TStSK-0004Kj-FH for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:48:56 +0100 Received: from blfd-4db00c1a.pool.mediaways.net ([77.176.12.26]:2015 helo=[192.168.178.22]) by 16.mx.freenet.de with esmtpsa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (port 465) (Exim 4.76 #1) id 1TStSK-00087Z-9D for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:48:56 +0100 Message-ID: <508EC187.4090804@freenet.de> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:48:55 +0100 From: wolf_dl4yhf User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <508D47B2.8060209@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <46A9A1D9FC954A658216B197782524BF@White> <891CD59233F844C283BAC09A2AAA04BA@White> <508D6A9D.4020600@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <508D6C1A.7050607@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <508D8084.6020501@freenet.de> <508D8295.8010604@broadpark.no> <508D84F0.1000706@freenet.de> <508D87C4.9030808@broadpark.no> <1351458186.87962.YahooMailNeo@web133201.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <508DA2F3.20400@freenet.de> In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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: Hi Roelof, Yes agreed, but in this particular case, whenever I compare lower and upper modulation sideband, the lower is always stronger. If it was just qsb / selective fading, none of the two should be favourized. [...] Content analysis details: (-0.6 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [195.4.92.92 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (dl4yhf[at]freenet.de) -0.6 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: c1f72e5acb1277e013f90c915ad7ad68 Subject: Re: LF: DJ9!E and DF5QG CW 0n 472.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 3039ac1d608d508ec7a478c9 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Hi Roelof, Yes agreed, but in this particular case, whenever I compare lower and upper modulation sideband, the lower is always stronger. If it was just qsb / selective fading, none of the two should be favourized. Cheers, Wolf . Am 29.10.2012 15:51, schrieb Roelof Bakker: > Hello Wolf, > > This phenomenon can be observed on many NDB's. > I don't think that a sophisticated modulator is used. > One reason for sure is selective fading. > It is not uncommon to see one sideband completely disappear whilst the > other is quite strong and vice versa. > > An other possibility is the restricted bandwidth of the antenna in use. > Many installations use an automatic antenna tuner, but this can get > awry in the long run by worn gearboxes etc! > > 73, > Roelof, pa0rdt > > >