Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mj02.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id EB40B380000AA; Sat, 22 Jun 2013 13:09:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1UqRI9-0000Fa-6z for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 22 Jun 2013 18:08:01 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1UqRI8-0000FK-S0 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 22 Jun 2013 18:08:00 +0100 Received: from know-smtprelay-omc-8.server.virginmedia.net ([80.0.253.72]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1UqRI6-0002bt-LW for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 22 Jun 2013 18:07:59 +0100 Received: from [192.168.2.2] ([82.5.252.56]) by know-smtprelay-8-imp with bizsmtp id rV7x1l00A1Dm6oq01V7xmE; Sat, 22 Jun 2013 18:07:57 +0100 X-Originating-IP: [82.5.252.56] X-Spam: 0 X-Authority: v=2.0 cv=T7fU1I2Q c=1 sm=1 a=LYFMc6Rxt/hR+Y+cXbZ2tQ==:17 a=uObrxnre4hsA:10 a=9YlaCzn6_68A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=NLZqzBF-AAAA:8 a=7j9SjKJqrzcA:10 a=YlkdZbyuLW6nyZKbFccA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=LYFMc6Rxt/hR+Y+cXbZ2tQ==:117 From: "Mike Dennison" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 18:08:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <51C5E800.6648.5614174@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com> In-reply-to: References: <6CCE2CE4841C49D39BC5810DDC9E4D88@White>, , X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41) Content-description: Mail message body 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: > The relative signal strengths are useful and I hope to take advantage > of this to compare antennas. Joe, beware of comparitive figures. They can be very useful, but are signal/noise ratios, not "signal strengths", so are dependent on static levels this time of year. [...] Content analysis details: (-0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [80.0.253.72 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record X-Scan-Signature: 925300287489a1d7272e62b121c112aa Subject: Re: AW: LF: VO1NA OP32 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII 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: 3039ac1d7b9651c5da490658 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none > The relative signal strengths are useful and I hope to take advantage > of this to compare antennas. Joe, beware of comparitive figures. They can be very useful, but are signal/noise ratios, not "signal strengths", so are dependent on static levels this time of year. Thanks for the tests. Mike, G3XDV ==========