Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-di01.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 9A17C38000100; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:37:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1U7X7M-0007um-JK for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 20:15:16 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1U7X7L-0007ud-Ux for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 20:15:15 +0000 Received: from out1.ip01ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.237]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1U7X7J-0001uy-Nw for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 20:15:14 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgMFACh5IlFcEkzu/2dsb2JhbABEgkO9YIEDF3OCGgUBAQUIAQEDICkCDwQZAQEDBQIBAxEEAQEKFwcHFAEEGgYNCQgGEwoBAgIBAYdvAxO3HAuJXIxZgX9UEQeDOgOIMYVZmHqDBw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,689,1355097600"; d="scan'208,217";a="419605184" Received: from host-92-18-76-238.as13285.net (HELO xphd97xgq27nyf) ([92.18.76.238]) by out1.ip01ir2.opaltelecom.net with SMTP; 18 Feb 2013 20:14:51 +0000 Message-ID: <025401ce0e14$9afe60a0$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> From: "mal hamilton" To: References: <01c201ce0df6$fca68350$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <01d001ce0df7$ec018990$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <3751D15C489E45289657A49A3266CF42@AGB> <021701ce0e05$1f0acd30$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 20:14:49 -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: Ken That seems to be the problem in merry old England. Even if you have the space, neighbours do not want you to put up an antenna and neither does the planing dept. In Scotland and Ireland there is a more laxed approach, more neighbourly. Put in for planning and see what happens mal/g3kev [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.0 AXB_XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_024C2 AXB_XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_024C2 X-Scan-Signature: 65732ee2b04a3a28b75f674e88814739 Subject: Re: LF: Re: POOR ANTENNAS Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0251_01CE0E14.9AB94150" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=HTML_60_70, HTML_FONTCOLOR_UNKNOWN,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: 3039ac1da6055122910066e5 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0251_01CE0E14.9AB94150 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ken That seems to be the problem in merry old England. Even if you have the = space, neighbours do not want you to put up an antenna and neither does = the planing dept. In Scotland and Ireland there is a more laxed = approach, more neighbourly.=20 Put in for planning and see what happens mal/g3kev ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ken=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 7:52 PM Subject: RE: LF: Re: POOR ANTENNAS Hi Mal. It would be very nice to have a 60ft vertical, you would not obtain = permission where I live, 3m is the max without planning permission. =20 Ken M0KHW =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org = [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] On Behalf Of mal hamilton Sent: 18 February 2013 18:24 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: Re: LF: Re: POOR ANTENNAS =20 Graham It is all inter related. But a few fundamentals are necessary. If it = is so bad with for instance a 24 dB disadvantage I would MOVE or pack it = in. Too many excuses are used, the amateur has enough space for a = reasonable antenna but says he is concerned about what the neighbours = might think. I have heard this so many times. How much space does a 60 = ft vertical take up, less than half a sq metre. Surely when a radio amateur is looking for a property he has antennas = in mind and looks for the largest real estate he can afford. especially if interested in MF or LF.=20 So wspr is totally dependent on the Receive operator ? and a vy quiet = location. I thought the whole idea was to overcome this problem It is not working, as I said looking at the wspr database, some stns = are not even aware that others are active because of lack of signal for = what ever reason. mal/g3kev =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Graham=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 5:01 PM Subject: Re: LF: Re: POOR ANTENNAS =20 May be , may be not Mal =20 The system is reading the s/n at the Rx and not the field = strength ........ depends on the local noise level , rst 159 or = 599 , carrier still S9 , 1=3D qrm 5=3D no qrm=20 From: mal hamilton=20 Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 4:49 PM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Subject: LF: Re: POOR ANTENNAS =20 Example I am receiving PA3EGO + 2dB another UK stn is showing -22 at a = shorter distance. A difference of 24 dB and this station says he is an Expert!!=20 =20 =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: mal hamilton=20 To: rsgb=20 Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 4:42 PM Subject: LF: POOR ANTENNAS =20 MF One thing the wspr DB shows is how poor some Receivers/Antennas = are comparing like with like approximately same distances from = Transmitter.=20 =20 g3kev =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0251_01CE0E14.9AB94150 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ken
That seems to be the problem in merry old = England.=20 Even if you have the space, neighbours do not want you to put up an = antenna and=20 neither does the planing dept. In Scotland and Ireland there is a more = laxed=20 approach, more neighbourly.
Put in for planning and see what = happens
mal/g3kev
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Ken
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 = 7:52=20 PM
Subject: RE: LF: Re: POOR = ANTENNAS

Hi=20 Mal.

It would be = very nice=20 to have a 60ft vertical, you would not obtain permission where I live, = 3m is=20 the max without planning permission.

 

Ken  =20 M0KHW

 

From:=20 owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org]=20 On Behalf Of mal = hamilton
Sent: 18 February 2013 = 18:24
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=
Subject: Re: LF: Re: POOR=20 ANTENNAS

 

Graham

It is all inter related. = But a few=20 fundamentals are necessary. If it is so bad with for instance a 24 dB=20 disadvantage I would MOVE or pack it = in.

Too many excuses are = used, the=20 amateur has enough space for a reasonable antenna but says he is = concerned=20 about what the neighbours might think. I have heard this so many = times. How=20 much space does a 60 ft vertical take up, less than half a sq=20 metre.

Surely when a radio = amateur is=20 looking for a property he has antennas in mind and looks for the = largest real=20 estate he can afford.

especially if interested = in MF or=20 LF.

So wspr is totally = dependent on=20 the Receive operator ? and a vy quiet location. I thought the whole = idea was=20 to overcome this problem

It is not working, as I = said=20 looking at the wspr database, some stns are not even aware that others = are=20 active because of lack of signal for what ever=20 reason.

mal/g3kev

 

----- Original Message = -----=20

From: Graham=20

To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= =20

Sent: Monday,=20 February 18, 2013 5:01 PM

Subject: Re: LF:=20 Re: POOR ANTENNAS

 

May be , may be not =20 Mal

 

The system is  reading  = the =20 s/n   at the  Rx   and  not = the  =20 field  strength ........  depends on the  local  = noise=20 level ,   rst   159  or  599  ,=20 carrier  still  S9  ,   1=3D=20 qrm     5=3D no  qrm=20

From: mal=20 hamilton

Sent:=20 Monday, February 18, 2013 4:49 PM

To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= =20

Subject: LF:=20 Re: POOR ANTENNAS

 

Example

I am receiving PA3EGO = + 2dB=20 another UK stn is showing -22 = at a=20 shorter distance. A difference of 24 = dB

and this station says = he is an=20 Expert!!

 

 

----- Original = Message -----=20

From: mal=20 hamilton

To: rsgb=20

Sent:=20 Monday, February 18, 2013 4:42 = PM

Subject: LF:=20 POOR ANTENNAS

 

MF

One thing the = wspr DB=20 shows is how poor some Receivers/Antennas are comparing like with = like=20 approximately same distances from Transmitter.=20

 

g3kev

 

= ------=_NextPart_000_0251_01CE0E14.9AB94150--