Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.96.198 with SMTP id du6csp63760igb; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 16:39:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.101.134 with SMTP id fg6mr4966638wib.9.1381361971582; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 16:39:31 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id b17si4792949wic.50.1969.12.31.16.00.00; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 16:39:31 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) client-ip=195.171.43.25; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) smtp.mail=owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; dkim=pass header.i=@mx.aol.com Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1VU23v-0001Tj-Vj for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 23:16:59 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1VU23v-0001Ta-At for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 23:16:59 +0100 Received: from omr-m04.mx.aol.com ([64.12.143.78]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1VU23t-0000wf-0Q for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 23:16:58 +0100 Received: from mtaout-da03.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaout-da03.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.51.131]) by omr-m04.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id D24DF70001D5D for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 18:16:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from White (95-91-237-85-dynip.superkabel.de [95.91.237.85]) by mtaout-da03.r1000.mx.aol.com (MUA/Third Party Client Interface) with ESMTPA id B3749E0000A9 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 18:16:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <70B6C1281C8F4236AA73AF13B43A0E41@White> From: "Markus Vester" To: References: <5253513B.7030805@virginbroadband.com.au> <7DA570935EC8481A950D4B6845E2DA74@White> <5255C6B3.3040403@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 00:16:48 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 12.0.1606 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V12.0.1606 x-aol-global-disposition: G DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20121107; t=1381357013; bh=IgbPOQb0ewNcBZzjk7BSgedX8y05sI8v8v3E/QjtrVc=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=uOnNFA4dIpcoqnieVfBwgA5CNlPeG0cE6Xnxsoceeny8zRwH+VU3dg0um1PLZrOBt e7Fk5V0tumfeHA5xMicA7lGpN+jdQj30DAQ2zGHHohYCL7w0b92re2du2+I/PM5qqv z1vMvnbrTCDY5mUrHF/ZZi6ExaAnw8zo1njRoN98= x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d33835255d5d21222 X-AOL-IP: 95.91.237.85 X-Spam-Score: -0.2 (/) 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: Stefan, Edgar, of course I shouldn't have used the term "weakened" which is quite inappropriate for your signal ;-) Yes I agree that the little extra distance would hardly explain the SNR difference between simultaneous receptions at Moonah and Orford. SNR plots for DCF and HGA also generally seem lower in Orford (keeping in mind the 10 dB vs 5 dB/div scales). It looks like daytime background noise may be a bit higher there, with a slight increase during uploads indicating a little noise pickup from the PC or modem. But this is probably irrelevant during nighttime hours when the band noise is way above the local noise. [...] Content analysis details: (-0.2 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [64.12.143.78 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (markusvester[at]aol.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.2 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 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: 87525734ac0bb319fb3f44295fe6963b Subject: Re: LF: Signal detection question Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000E_01CEC54E.02C59FF0" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.9 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE, MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME 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 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 2969 Dies ist eine mehrteilige Nachricht im MIME-Format. ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01CEC54E.02C59FF0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Stefan, Edgar, of course I shouldn't have used the term "weakened" which is quite = inappropriate for your signal ;-) Yes I agree that the little extra distance would hardly explain the SNR = difference between simultaneous receptions at Moonah and Orford. SNR = plots for DCF and HGA also generally seem lower in Orford (keeping in = mind the 10 dB vs 5 dB/div scales). It looks like daytime background = noise may be a bit higher there, with a slight increase during uploads = indicating a little noise pickup from the PC or modem. But this is = probably irrelevant during nighttime hours when the band noise is way = above the local noise. My only explanation is that Orford is located on the Tasmanian east = coast, with mountain ranges in the back somewhat obstructing antenna = takeoff towards Eu, while preferring QRN from the Pacific. Best 73, Markus (DF6NM) From: Stefan Sch=E4fer=20 Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 11:12 PM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Subject: Re: LF: Signal detection question Am 09.10.2013 00:12, schrieb Markus Vester:=20 [...] I have been following your experiments with interest. Looking at the = two grabbers, Stefan was sometimes visible in Moonah but not (or at = least not much) in Orford. Not sure whether that's due to some intrinsic = noise in the Orford setup (then you might end up making things worse by = adding in Orford data), or Stefan being weakened by the extra distance = (then Orford data would still be useful to partially null QRN).=20 Weakened by the extra distance of 27 km (+ 0.16 %) ?? :-)=20 No i think i am weakened by some Q decrease of my loding coil and that = building, = https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19882028/20130913_161536.jpg , which = is now built up in 30m distance to the antenna :-(=20 Seems i will need a 3 phase PA (already thought about a H bridge out of = STW25N95K3 :-) ) if i want to hold the level :-) Let us make a reference = test (>=3D! 200 uV/m) when they finished the buildings and dismantled = the cranes... Or, it is simply a worse propagation than last year?? 73, Stefan/DK7FC ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01CEC54E.02C59FF0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Stefan, Edgar,
 
of course I shouldn't have used the = term "weakened"=20 which is quite inappropriate for your signal = ;-)
 
Yes I agree that the = little=20 extra distance would hardly explain the SNR difference=20 between simultaneous receptions at Moonah and Orford. SNR = plots=20 for DCF and HGA also generally seem lower in Orford (keeping in mind the = 10 dB=20 vs 5 dB/div scales). It looks like = daytime=20 background noise may be a bit higher there, with a slight = increase during uploads indicating a little noise pickup from = the PC=20 or modem. But this is probably irrelevant during = nighttime hours=20 when the band noise is way above the local noise.
 
My only explanation = is that=20 Orford is located on the Tasmanian east coast, with mountain=20 ranges in the back somewhat obstructing antenna takeoff = towards Eu,=20 while preferring QRN from the Pacific.
 
Best=20 73,
Markus = (DF6NM)

From: Stefan = Sch=E4fer
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 11:12 PM
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= =20
Subject: Re: LF: Signal detection question


Am = 09.10.2013 00:12,=20 schrieb Markus Vester:=20
 [...]
I have been following your = experiments with=20 interest. Looking at the two grabbers, Stefan was sometimes = visible in=20 Moonah but not (or at least not much) in Orford. Not sure whether = that's due=20 to some intrinsic noise in the Orford setup (then you might end = up making=20 things worse by adding in Orford data), or Stefan being weakened by = the extra=20 distance (then Orford data would still be useful to partially null = QRN).=20
Weakened by the=20 extra distance of 27 km (+ 0.16 %) ?? :-)
No i think i am weakened = by some Q=20 decrease of my loding coil and that building, https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19882028/20130913_161536.jpg=20 , which is now built up in 30m distance to the antenna :-(
Seems i = will need=20 a 3 phase PA (already thought about a H bridge out of STW25N95K3=20 :-) ) if i want to hold the level :-) Let us make a reference test = (>=3D! 200=20 uV/m) when they finished the buildings and dismantled the = cranes...
Or, it is=20 simply a worse propagation than last year??

73,=20 Stefan/DK7FC

------=_NextPart_000_000E_01CEC54E.02C59FF0--