Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dc05.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id BD10C38000094; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 17:10:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1U27kQ-0003wA-Vn for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 03 Feb 2013 22:09:14 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.34] (helo=relay2.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1U27kQ-0003vt-CE for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 03 Feb 2013 22:09:14 +0000 Received: from out1.ip03ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.239]) by relay2.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1U27kO-0003wu-E6 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 03 Feb 2013 22:09:13 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApMBABPdDlECZMul/2dsb2JhbAANLgi7V4NygxIBAQEBA4EJCwkPCRYPCQMCAQIBRRMIAQG0QJJDjSYFhCcDlh+TTQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,595,1355097600"; d="scan'208,217";a="413182177" Received: from host-2-100-203-165.as13285.net (HELO [127.0.0.1]) ([2.100.203.165]) by out1.ip03ir2.opaltelecom.net with ESMTP; 03 Feb 2013 22:03:49 +0000 Message-ID: <510EDEC2.2000000@psk31.plus.com> Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2013 22:03:46 +0000 From: g3zjo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <001c01ce01fe$4d11b490$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <510E4A1A.6060005@psk31.plus.com> <510ED52D.4020706@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> In-Reply-To: <510ED52D.4020706@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 130203-0, 03/02/2013), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay2.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 Stefan Well as far as I can tell it should be 4mW. My original TX gave 200uW calculated and confirmed by James some time ago. I did increase that with a capacity hat but that was mechanically a problem to keep in the air and was removed a year ago.. The current figure ties up with the TX power increase and the resultant reports. Recently I have been down to 20uW and reports likewise follow the math. I wanted to try 2uW but I can't get that low yet, I am working on that, whether it it is worth the effort is another thing (I could use a 10dB attenuator), I want to confirm that I should get a decode from G0VQH (91Km) with room to spare. Interestingly G0VQH is in my 'magic' direction from here and someone reminded me the other day that I always say re QRP on HF that Germans live at the bottom of my garden.:-) [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: 9b622d5c6a961580a0f289e85f67bcca Subject: Re: LF: wspr Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040508000302080108050006" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE, HTML_TAG_EXISTS_TBODY 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: 3039ac1d4085510ee04c41d9 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040508000302080108050006 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Stefan Well as far as I can tell it should be 4mW. My original TX gave 200uW calculated and confirmed by James some time ago. I did increase that with a capacity hat but that was mechanically a problem to keep in the air and was removed a year ago.. The current figure ties up with the TX power increase and the resultant reports. Recently I have been down to 20uW and reports likewise follow the math. I wanted to try 2uW but I can't get that low yet, I am working on that, whether it it is worth the effort is another thing (I could use a 10dB attenuator), I want to confirm that I should get a decode from G0VQH (91Km) with room to spare. Interestingly G0VQH is in my 'magic' direction from here and someone reminded me the other day that I always say re QRP on HF that Germans live at the bottom of my garden.:-) The antenna is still the same, inv. L less than 6m up and 6m horiz. 73 Eddie On 03/02/2013 21:22, Stefan Schäfer wrote: > Eddie, > > Is that really 5 mW ERP? > Timestamp Call MHz SNR Drift Grid Pwr Reporter RGrid km az > 2013-02-03 20:50 G3ZJO 0.475632 -26 1 IO92ng 0.005 > DK7FC JN49ik 742 111 > > > That would be quite remarkable over that distance over land. > > 73, Stefan/DK7FC > > Am 03.02.2013 12:29, schrieb g3zjo: >> On 03/02/2013 11:04, mal hamilton wrote: >>> MF >>> At 1056 z there were 3 stations active about the same strength on >>> waterfall but only one decoded PA3EGO >>> I think it must be a Timing sync problem somewhere. I suppose >>> ideally everyone should be locked to the same time standard. >>> g3kev >> It's your end Mal, I see that Roger didn't do a runner after posting >> malicious urls. So download atomic kitten or any of the standard time >> utilities and get you computer time sorted. >> Mind you can do it by hand, I did for years.and even during M/S QSO's >> because my old computer could loose 3 or 4 seconds whilst making a 1 >> min transmission, blimey those were the days. There is only one >> Standard time and all time servers will be the same. >> >> Eddie >> --------------040508000302080108050006 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Stefan

Well as far as I can tell it should be 4mW.
My original TX gave 200uW calculated and confirmed by James some time ago. I did increase that with a capacity hat but that was mechanically a problem to keep in the air and was removed a year ago..
The current figure ties up with the TX power increase and the resultant reports. Recently I have been down to 20uW and reports likewise follow the math. I wanted to try 2uW but I can't get that low yet, I am working on that, whether it it is worth the effort is another thing (I could use a 10dB attenuator), I want to confirm that I should get a decode from G0VQH (91Km) with room to spare.
Interestingly G0VQH is in my 'magic' direction from here and someone reminded me the other day that I always say re QRP on HF that Germans live at the bottom of my garden. :-)

The antenna is still the same, inv. L less than 6m up and 6m horiz.

73 Eddie


On 03/02/2013 21:22, Stefan Schäfer wrote:
Eddie,

Is that really 5 mW ERP?
Timestamp Call MHz SNR Drift Grid Pwr Reporter RGrid km az
 2013-02-03 20:50   G3ZJO   0.475632   -26   1   IO92ng   0.005   DK7FC   JN49ik   742   111

That would be quite remarkable over that distance over land.

73, Stefan/DK7FC

Am 03.02.2013 12:29, schrieb g3zjo:
On 03/02/2013 11:04, mal hamilton wrote:
MF
At 1056 z there were 3 stations active about the same strength on waterfall but only one decoded PA3EGO
I think it must be a Timing sync problem somewhere. I suppose ideally everyone should be locked to the same time standard.
g3kev
 
It's your end Mal, I see that Roger didn't do a runner after posting malicious urls. So download atomic kitten or any of the standard time utilities and get you computer time sorted.
Mind you can do it by hand, I did for years.and even during M/S QSO's because my old computer could loose 3 or 4 seconds whilst making a 1 min transmission, blimey those were the days. There is only one Standard time and all time servers will be the same.

Eddie


--------------040508000302080108050006--