Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mg03.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 34B9F380000A6; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:02:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1U7Xpb-00008B-EZ for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:00:59 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1U7Xpa-000082-No for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:00:58 +0000 Received: from mail-qa0-f54.google.com ([209.85.216.54]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1U7XpX-00026X-9E for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:00:57 +0000 Received: by mail-qa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id hg5so1488617qab.6 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:00:33 -0800 (PST) X-DKIM-Result: Domain=gmail.com Result=Good and Known Domain DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=OpAH7KmE7cU2uDKl0Fy1E6xtw8LG0ygsG24dwv9Y7EU=; b=Uhp2egaKD/1+NLP6bLLPm3o2bDuqCN3/gwQrZX7snp5aTclN344gd353Y6ebm59zNg slgNzn/wLnGgDAle9nn7w1ncUsgcH1lYxdmIe+mQTpZ4I56V1zrJG9EOHtlC1tLJIbkn Xtrjkoz7MZrC6xnLO1Gcmcuzn2hgHA9TM2yzA/PRkGemgenu+SuJ7nEflMEvD60ap4Ar f34PynrJvZjc5pfGXkE/e/k19bxiDleFh98Frq4cTg3bTUG+C0wt3wbT3ywDVqBg9Bh5 nAhz/6tZ4uqSVEIwkCJAAc0l4IBeWHJlvBipOznFblmoDy2mnzMbMm2rayHf5KpjEpmy xzYg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.49.127.199 with SMTP id ni7mr5802531qeb.17.1361221233114; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:00:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.229.201.228 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:00:32 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <025401ce0e14$9afe60a0$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> References: <01c201ce0df6$fca68350$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <01d001ce0df7$ec018990$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <3751D15C489E45289657A49A3266CF42@AGB> <021701ce0e05$1f0acd30$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <025401ce0e14$9afe60a0$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:00:32 +0000 Message-ID: From: Roger Lapthorn To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" 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: Mal and Pete, Thankfully I am able to manage the noise here at this (small) QTH, but I know others have a more difficult job. Yes, well sited RX loops and E-field probes help and usually a solution is possible. [...] 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 [209.85.216.54 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (rogerlapthorn[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Scan-Signature: 4c68a2de3e8889496b681f3e16d4f49a Subject: Re: LF: Re: POOR ANTENNAS Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6dcbd60f7ff504d6060432 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=HTML_50_60, HTML_FONTCOLOR_UNKNOWN,HTML_MESSAGE,TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL 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-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: mtain-mg03.r1000.mx.aol.com ; domain : gmail.com DKIM : pass x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d60cb512296cb1107 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none --047d7b6dcbd60f7ff504d6060432 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Mal and Pete, Thankfully I am able to manage the noise here at this (small) QTH, but I know others have a more difficult job. Yes, well sited RX loops and E-field probes help and usually a solution is possible. BTW, I cannot see many people being happy with a 60 foot vertical appearing next door. 73s Roger G3XBM On 18 February 2013 20:14, mal hamilton wrote: > ** **************** > 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 > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Ken > *To:* rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > *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.**** > > ** ** > > Ken M0KHW**** > > ** ** > ------------------------------ > > *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**** > > ** ** > > 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. **** > > 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**** > > **** > > ----- Original Message ----- **** > > *From:* Graham **** > > *To:* rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org **** > > *Sent:* Monday, February 18, 2013 5:01 PM**** > > *Subject:* Re: LF: Re: POOR ANTENNAS**** > > ** ** > > May be , may be not Mal**** > > **** > > 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= qrm 5= no qrm **** > > *From:* mal hamilton **** > > *Sent:* Monday, February 18, 2013 4:49 PM**** > > *To:* rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org **** > > *Subject:* LF: Re: POOR ANTENNAS**** > > ** ** > > 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!! **** > > **** > > **** > > ----- Original Message ----- **** > > *From:* mal hamilton **** > > *To:* rsgb **** > > *Sent:* Monday, February 18, 2013 4:42 PM**** > > *Subject:* LF: POOR ANTENNAS**** > > ** ** > > MF**** > > One thing the wspr DB shows is how poor some Receivers/Antennas are > comparing like with like approximately same distances from Transmitter. ** > ** > > **** > > g3kev**** > > **** > > -- http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/ http://www.g3xbm.co.uk https://sites.google.com/site/sub9khz/ http://qss2.blogspot.com/ http://www.youtube.com/user/g3xbm --047d7b6dcbd60f7ff504d6060432 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mal and Pete,

Thankfully I am = able to manage the noise here at this (small) QTH, but I know others have a= more difficult job. Yes, well sited RX loops and E-field probes help and u= sually a solution is possible.

BTW, I cannot see many people being happy with a 60 foot ver= tical appearing next door.

73s
Roger G3XBM=


On = 18 February 2013 20:14, mal hamilton <g3kevmal@talktalk.net> wrote:
Ken
That seems to be the problem in=A0merry old Engla= nd.=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 laxe= d=20 approach, more neighbourly.
Put in for planning and see what happens
mal/g3kev
=A0
=A0
=A0
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Ken
Sent: = Monday, February 18, 2013 7:52=20 PM
Subject: RE: LF: Re: POOR ANTENNAS<= /div>

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.

=A0

Ken=A0=A0=20 M0KHW

=A0

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:<= /span> rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: Re: LF: Re: POOR=20 ANTENNAS

=A0

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.

<= /div>

Too many excuses are used, the=20 amateur has enough space for a reasonable antenna but says he is concerne= d=20 about what the neighbours might think. I have heard this so many times. H= ow=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 ar= e=20 active because of lack of signal for what ever=20 reason.

mal/g3kev

=A0

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

From= : Graham=20

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

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

=A0

May be , may be not=A0=20 Mal

=A0

The system is=A0 reading=A0 the=A0=20 s/n=A0=A0 at the=A0 Rx=A0=A0 and=A0 not the=A0=A0=20 field=A0 strength ........=A0 depends on the=A0 local=A0 noise=20 level ,=A0=A0 rst=A0=A0 159=A0 or =A0599=A0 ,=20 carrier=A0 still=A0 S9=A0 ,=A0=A0 1=3D=20 qrm=A0=A0=A0=A0 5=3D no=A0 qrm=20

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

Subject: LF:=20 Re: POOR ANTENNAS

=A0

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!!

=A0

=A0

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

Fr= om: mal=20 hamilton

To: rsgb=20

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

Subject: LF:=20 POOR ANTENNAS

=A0

MF

One thing the wspr=A0DB=20 shows is how poor some Receivers/Antennas are comparing like with lik= e=20 approximately same distances from Transmitter.=20

=A0

g3kev

=A0




--
--047d7b6dcbd60f7ff504d6060432--