Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dg02.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id AA6703800009A; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 12:43:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1U38mr-0005wi-72 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 06 Feb 2013 17:27:57 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1U38mq-0005wZ-Qq for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 06 Feb 2013 17:27:56 +0000 Received: from out1.ip06ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.242]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1U38mp-0004tX-8k for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 06 Feb 2013 17:27:55 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Au8LAB12ElFOlrdN/2dsb2JhbABFinO0TgR+F3OCGgUBAQQBCAEBAyUBIwImBgEBAwUCAQMRBAEBCiUUAQQaBhYIBhMKAQICAQGHegq8NY0kFBlhgykDiDCFV5hsgn4 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,615,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="565055344" Received: from host-78-150-183-77.as13285.net (HELO xphd97xgq27nyf) ([78.150.183.77]) by out1.ip06ir2.opaltelecom.net with SMTP; 06 Feb 2013 17:27:33 +0000 Message-ID: <001d01ce048f$3ced6b70$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> From: "mal hamilton" To: References: <72D88C6C0DAA4B379CBBCA695EF47BF0@White> <9C06F775D1344822B5D30EBBAB8AA144@AGB> <51128C6E.1040505@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 17:27:28 -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: 3.6 (+++) 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: Stefan Are you saying it is all guesswork ??? 10 dB either way !! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefan Schäfer" To: Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 5:01 PM Subject: Re: LF: declared power on WSPR [...] Content analysis details: (3.6 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 3.6 AXB_XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_024C2 AXB_XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_024C2 X-Scan-Signature: b77892ad90d0261eaf071f4f6cf31464 Subject: Re: LF: declared power on WSPR 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: 3039ac1d410a51129648638e X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Stefan Are you saying it is all guesswork ??? 10 dB either way !! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefan Schäfer" To: Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 5:01 PM Subject: Re: LF: declared power on WSPR > Hi Dimitris, > > Am 06.02.2013 00:18, schrieb Dimitrios Tsifakis: > > [...] > > > > A reason for the discrepancy between different "1 W" values may be > > that the majority of amateurs would calculate rather than measure the > > radiated power. And as we all know, the majority of back-yard antennas > > are not quite lab reference antennas. If anything, I would guess that > > calculated radiated power is overestimated compared to reality. > > > > 73, Dimitris > > > > Yes, that's the reason :-) > > 73, Stefan > >