Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dc03.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 716C238000118; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 12:08:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1U38Nm-0005l8-8W for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 06 Feb 2013 17:02:02 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1U38Nl-0005kz-SM for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 06 Feb 2013 17:02:01 +0000 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de ([129.206.100.212]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1U38Nk-0004lm-CU for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 06 Feb 2013 17:02:00 +0000 Received: from freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.29.204]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id r16H1drs006312 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 18:01:39 +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 r16H1d3L018450 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 18:01:39 +0100 Message-ID: <51128C6E.1040505@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 18:01:34 +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: <72D88C6C0DAA4B379CBBCA695EF47BF0@White> <9C06F775D1344822B5D30EBBAB8AA144@AGB> In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) 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 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 > [...] Content analysis details: (-0.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [129.206.100.212 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: 0b2d339ae1d48966556dfb6ad64e2bce Subject: Re: LF: declared power on WSPR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; 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: 3039ac1d408351128e0866da X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none 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