Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mh02.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 01A1438000103; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 07:48:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TlfWr-0007nm-Qo for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:47:13 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TlfWr-0007nd-D1 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:47:13 +0000 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de ([129.206.210.211]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TlfWp-0006AV-Mn for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:47:12 +0000 Received: from freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.29.204]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qBKClAe8007151 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:47:10 +0100 Received: from [129.206.22.206] (pc206.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.22.206]) by freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.11.20060308/8.11.2) with ESMTP id qBKClAGx003508 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:47:10 +0100 Message-ID: <50D308C8.7090202@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:47:04 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Stefan_Sch=E4fer?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <001e01cddea6$9598aa00$0501a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <50D2FB08.3000704@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <003401cddea9$2d337a00$0501a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> In-Reply-To: <003401cddea9$2d337a00$0501a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) 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: Yes, if the 20th is stated, then just use it from now on. No one will care or even complain. And no one seriously expects trouble. 472.5 is not a good frequency. There is a permanent QRM signal there, observed/confirmed by several stations (such as DL4YHF). Thus we prefer 472.2 or 472.8 in recent times. However some stations still stick to 472.5, which is not a good choice. [...] Content analysis details: (-2.3 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust [129.206.210.211 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: 0317e2ac8ed27149e57223a21580246d Subject: Re: LF: NOV 472 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090000060607030700050608" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,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: 3039ac1d60d650d309034bdf X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090000060607030700050608 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yes, if the 20th is stated, then just use it from now on. No one will care or even complain. And no one seriously expects trouble. 472.5 is not a good frequency. There is a permanent QRM signal there, observed/confirmed by several stations (such as DL4YHF). Thus we prefer 472.2 or 472.8 in recent times. However some stations still stick to 472.5, which is not a good choice. Last night i added a variometer part for the MF coil. This covers 449...482kHz now, which is suboptimal. Let me spend some time to optimise the adjustable range. CUL, Stefan Am 20.12.2012 12:57, schrieb mal hamilton: > Stefan > as far as I am concerned it is effective from now. > Check 472.5 Khz now > de mal/g3kev > --------------090000060607030700050608 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yes, if the 20th is stated, then just use it from now on. No one will care or even complain. And no one seriously expects trouble.

472.5 is not a good frequency. There is a permanent QRM signal there, observed/confirmed by several stations (such as DL4YHF). Thus we prefer 472.2 or 472.8 in recent times. However some stations still stick to 472.5, which is not a good choice.

Last night i added a variometer part for the MF coil. This covers 449...482kHz now, which is suboptimal. Let me spend some time to optimise the adjustable range.

CUL, Stefan

Am 20.12.2012 12:57, schrieb mal hamilton:
Stefan
as far as I am concerned it is effective from now.
Check 472.5 Khz now
de mal/g3kev
 

--------------090000060607030700050608--