Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.96.198 with SMTP id du6csp110064igb; Sat, 12 Oct 2013 12:38:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.208.45 with SMTP id mb13mr8238291wic.27.1381606738181; Sat, 12 Oct 2013 12:38:58 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id a5si22615436wjb.10.1969.12.31.16.00.00; Sat, 12 Oct 2013 12:38:58 -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 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1VV4Rk-000808-Fe for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 12 Oct 2013 20:01:52 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1VV4Rj-0007zz-LX for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 12 Oct 2013 20:01:51 +0100 Received: from blu0-omc1-s33.blu0.hotmail.com ([65.55.116.44]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1VV4Rf-0006MJ-9b for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 12 Oct 2013 20:01:49 +0100 Received: from BLU180-W60 ([65.55.116.7]) by blu0-omc1-s33.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sat, 12 Oct 2013 12:01:46 -0700 X-TMN: [amfPGYvoX9kxPndsJhLJmeAQyHr1jGit] X-Originating-Email: [rjraide@hotmail.com] Message-ID: From: Bob Raide To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 15:01:46 -0400 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <047401cec766$33238300$996a8900$@comcast.net> References: ,<52592361.10496.265B84@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com> ,<047401cec766$33238300$996a8900$@comcast.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Oct 2013 19:01:46.0748 (UTC) FILETIME=[7FB12BC0:01CEC77D] 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: Jim; Thanks for all your comments-greatly appreciated and I hope other such comments might follow. I am planning to "spark-up" by 2200 tonight. I have seen in the pasted couple years on 500 that propagation begun at that time when running some "by ear" CW/SSB contacts with Finbar on 500. Signals actually were at their best early on just before dark and just pulled back a bit by 2300 or 2400. Hope we have some propagation tonight as I was not planning on being here but that has been changed so will be. [...] 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 [65.55.116.44 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (rjraide[at]hotmail.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 X-Scan-Signature: 7503b406b4f0651fec4f329b587588f8 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_1d038411-b838-48f8-b302-f8c8c5f4f0a2_" Subject: RE: LF: 74.5495 QRSS 60 for tonight... X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD,HTML_20_30, 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 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 1404 --_1d038411-b838-48f8-b302-f8c8c5f4f0a2_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jim=3B Thanks for all your comments-greatly appreciated and I hope other such comm= ents might follow. I am planning to "spark-up" by 2200 tonight. I have se= en in the pasted couple years on 500 that propagation begun at that time wh= en running some "by ear" CW/SSB contacts with Finbar on 500. Signals actua= lly were at their best early on just before dark and just pulled back a bit= by 2300 or 2400. =20 Hope we have some propagation tonight as I was not planning on being here b= ut that has been changed so will be. =20 From: hvanesce@comcast.net To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Date: Sat=2C 12 Oct 2013 11:14:42 -0500 Subject: RE: LF: 74.5495 QRSS 60 for tonight... Congrats Bob and All=2CNice work on TX and RX signals=2C and capture.The fo= ur contiguous callsigns are a thing of beauty=2C especially at the near-thr= eshold SNR level which says something about the stability of the D-layer in= addition to the great work on TX and RX. The differences between results a= t QTH=92s of Mike=2C Victor=2C and Hartmut are also interesting:At 75kHz at= night and starting from Bob=92s QTH there should be about 1dB loss over th= e water between Mikes=92 QTH and the QTH=92s of Victor and Hartmut=3Banothe= r 1.0dB loss overland to Victor=2C and a total of 2dB overland to Hartmut= =92s QTH.A total of 2dB additional loss on a path from Bob to Victor (compa= red to the path between Bob and Mike)=2C and a total of 3dB additional loss= on a path from Bob to Hartmut (compared to the path between Bob and Mike).= If I recall correctly=2C of signals captured on September 29th=2C Hartmut= =92s had the higher SNR level. Although the above comprises a small sample= =2C it still makes me wonder if modal peaks and nulls with distance may be = a contributing factor between signal quality at QTH=92s of Mike=2C Victor= =2C and Hartmut=2C for a signal originating at Bob=92s QTH=2C as opposed to= just noise differences between the receive locations. Bob mentioned: =93Wi= ll have to start earlier as looks like there was propagation very early on.= Was not fully dark yet when I fired up=85 looked at 137 later on and 500 = [472] but saw nothing going on with "TA" prop on either of those bands=85. = on this low freq=2C does it sometimes open when higher frequencies don't?= =94 I had some thoughts on differences between (a) 75kHz band openings at n= ight and (b) higher-frequency band openings at night:I think that there are= a number of reasons why 75kHz could (at times) open before dark when highe= r frequency bands don=92t.One example: in the summer=2C the day/night disad= vantage of signals at 137kHz is about 8dB greater than for signals at 75kHz= . This leaves room for near-threshold signals at 75kHz to appear near night= fall when signals at 137 with less link margin don=92t appear until later. = Definitely not always the case=2C but a significant possibilityAnother exam= ple: (a) at sunspot maximum=2C daytime signals at 75kHz improve by ~9dB com= pared to signals at sunspot minimum=3B (b) at sunspot maximum=2C daytime si= gnals at 137kHz don=92t change compared to signals at sunspot minimum=3B an= d (c) daytime signals at 472kHz worsen by ~9dB compared to signals at sunsp= ot minimum. Since night-time signals are much less affected by sunspot acti= vity at those frequencies=2C the day/night disadvantage of signals at 137kH= z may be roughly 10dB =96 11dB greater than for signals at 75kHz=2C near s= unspot maximum (right around now). This leaves even more room for near-thre= shold signals at 75kHz to appear near nightfall when signals at 137kHz with= less link margin don=92t appear until later. Again=2C definitely not alway= s the case=2C but a significant possibility. Even at 5000-6000km path lengt= hs=2C modal differences (TEx/TMx) between 75kHz and 137kHz (for example) co= uld yield advantages and disadvantages of a few dB to the 75kHz signal (com= pared to the 137kHz signal) as nightfall and night progress. There are othe= r interesting examples=2C and accordingly in cases where +/- 10dB day/night= uncertainties matter=2C each doubling of frequency (roughly speaking) betw= een 1kHz and 500kHz could be considered as a potentially different case. 75= kHz is a comparatively less-studied band=2C and I think that the efforts of= Bob and the group=2C especially under these conditions near the threshold = of detectability=2C are likely to add significantly to the understanding of= propagation in this band. I think it would be great if Bob switched on ear= lier=2C which is easy for me to say because Bob and the group are doing the= hard work=2C but I think that Bob=92s TX efforts and those of the four sta= tions capturing signals are and will be greatly appreciated. Congrats again= to Bob and all for a great effort and great results. Regards=2C JimAA5BW = From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blac= ksheep.org] On Behalf Of Bob Raide Sent: Saturday=2C October 12=2C 2013 6:25 AM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: RE: LF: 74.5495 QRSS 60 for tonight... Mike=3B Those captures are amazing! You caught me off guard as I didn't think anyo= ne would see anything for hour or two and my signal generator would stabili= ze after about an hour! I didn't get home until after 2300 to warm it up. Will have to start earlier as looks like there was propagation very early o= n. Was not fully dark yet when I fired up! I looked at 137 later on and 500 [472] but saw nothing going on with "TA" p= rop on either of those bands. =20 You have allot of experience on this low freq=2C does it sometimes open whe= n higher frequencies don't? As Nickolas commented "congratulations" on terrific job!=20 Still Summer weather here-was 74 F during the day and 55F at midnight! May not be able to get home tonight till late so not sure if will get on ti= ll after 0400. But will let you know as band may even get better? Hopeful= ly Dex and John Andrews can get on am sure you would easily capture them to= o-73 for now=2C Bob > From: mike.dennison@ntlworld.com > To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > Date: Sat=2C 12 Oct 2013 10:24:33 +0100 > Subject: Re: LF: 74.5495 QRSS 60 for tonight... >=20 > Good signals at last! I could see you switch on at 2320=2C drift a=20 > couple of Hz LF to reach the correct frequency=2C then continue until=20 > 0330 when you faded out=2C with a small reprise an hour later. The=20 > continous stream is shown on the attached screen shots. I make three=20 > almost 100% callsigns and one totally complete one. >=20 > Well done and thanks. >=20 > Mike=2C G3XDV > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >=20 > > WG2XRS/4 [XRS4] NY on till 0600 at least-Bob=20 >=20 > = --_1d038411-b838-48f8-b302-f8c8c5f4f0a2_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Jim=3B
Thanks =3Bfor all = your comments-greatly appreciated and I hope other such comments might foll= ow. =3B I am planning to "spark-up" by 2200 tonight. =3B I have see= n in the pasted couple years on 500 that propagation begun at that time whe= n running some =3B"by ear" CW/SSB contacts with Finbar on 500. =3B = Signals actually were at their best early on just before dark and just pull= ed back a bit by 2300 or 2400. =3B
Hope we have some propagation to= night as I =3Bwas not planning on being here but that has been changed = so will be.
 =3B
From: hvanesce@comc= ast.net
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Date: Sat=2C 12 Oct 2013 11:= 14:42 -0500
Subject: RE: LF: 74.5495 QRSS 60 for tonight...

Congrats Bob and All=2C

Nice work on TX and RX signals=2C and capture.

<= p class=3D"ecxMsoNormal">The four contiguous callsigns are a thing of beauty=2C especially at= the near-threshold SNR level which says something about the stability of t= he D-layer in addition to the great work on TX and RX.

=  =3B

The differences between results at QTH=92s of Mi= ke=2C Victor=2C and Hartmut are also interesting:

At 75kH= z at night and starting from Bob=92s QTH there should be about 1dB loss ove= r the water between Mikes=92 QTH and the QTH=92s of Victor and Hartmut=3B

another 1.0dB loss overland to Victor=2C and a total of 2d= B overland to Hartmut=92s QTH.

A total of 2dB additional = loss on a path from Bob to Victor (compared to the path between Bob and Mik= e)=2C and a total of 3dB additional loss on a path from Bob to Hartmut (com= pared to the path between Bob and Mike).

If I recall corr= ectly=2C of signals captured on September 29th=2C Hartmut=92s ha= d the higher SNR level. Although the above comprises a small sample=2C it s= till makes me wonder if modal peaks and nulls with distance may be a contri= buting factor between signal quality at QTH=92s of Mike=2C Victor=2C and Ha= rtmut=2C for a signal originating at Bob=92s QTH=2C as opposed to just nois= e differences between the receive locations.

 =3B

Bob mentioned: =93Will have to start earlier as looks like t= here was propagation very early on. =3B Was not fully dark yet when I f= ired up=85 looked at 137 later on and 500 [472] but saw nothing going on wi= th "TA" prop on either of those bands=85. on this low freq=2C does it somet= imes open when higher frequencies don't?=94

 =3B

I had some thoughts on differences between (a) 75kHz band ope= nings at night and (b) higher-frequency band openings at night:

<= p class=3D"ecxMsoNormal">I think that there are a number of reasons why 75kHz could (at times= ) open before dark when higher frequency bands don=92t.

= One example: in the summer=2C the day/night disadvantage of signals at 137k= Hz is about 8dB greater than for signals at 75kHz. This leaves room for nea= r-threshold signals at 75kHz to appear near nightfall when signals at 137 w= ith less link margin don=92t appear until later. Definitely not always the = case=2C but a significant possibility

<= span style=3D'font-family: "Calibri"=2C"sans-serif"=3B'>Another example: (a= ) at sunspot maximum=2C daytime signals at 75kHz improve by ~9dB compared t= o signals at sunspot minimum=3B (b) at sunspot maximum=2C daytime signals a= t 137kHz don=92t change compared to signals at sunspot minimum=3B and (c) d= aytime signals at 472kHz worsen by ~9dB compared to signals at sunspot mini= mum. Since night-time signals are much less affected by sunspot activity at= those frequencies=2C the day/night disadvantage of signals at 137kHz may b= e roughly 10dB =96 11dB  =3Bgreater than for signals at 75kHz=2C near s= unspot maximum (right around now). This leaves even more room for near-thre= shold signals at 75kHz to appear near nightfall when signals at 137kHz with= less link margin don=92t appear until later. Again=2C definitely not alway= s the case=2C but a significant possibility.

 =3B

Even at 5000-6000km path lengths=2C modal differences (TEx/T= Mx) between 75kHz and 137kHz (for example) could yield advantages and disad= vantages of a few dB to the 75kHz signal (compared to the 137kHz signal) as= nightfall and night progress.

 =3B

There are other interesting examples=2C and accordingly in cases where +/-= 10dB day/night uncertainties matter=2C each doubling of frequency (roughly= speaking) between 1kHz and 500kHz could be considered as a potentially dif= ferent case. 75kHz is a comparatively less-studied band=2C and I think that= the efforts of Bob and the group=2C especially under these conditions near= the threshold of detectability=2C are likely to add significantly to the u= nderstanding of propagation in this band. I think it would be great if Bob = switched on earlier=2C which is easy for me to say because Bob and the grou= p are doing the hard work=2C but I think that Bob=92s TX efforts and those = of the four stations capturing signals are and will be greatly appreciated.=

 =3B

Congrats again to Bob and al= l for a great effort and great results.

 =3B

Regards=2C

 =3B

Jim

AA5BW

 =3B

 =3B

 =3B

From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org [mailto:own= er-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] On Behalf Of Bob Raide
Sent:<= /b> Saturday=2C October 12=2C 2013 6:25 AM
To: rsgb_lf_group@blac= ksheep.org
Subject: RE: LF: 74.5495 QRSS 60 for tonight...=

 =3B

Mike=3B<= br>Those captures are amazing! =3B =3BYou caught me off guard as I = didn't think anyone would see anything for hour or two and my signal genera= tor would stabilize after about an hour! =3B I didn't get home until af= ter 2300 to warm it up.
Will have to start earlier as looks like there w= as propagation very early on. =3B Was not fully dark yet when I fired u= p!
I looked at 137 later on and 500 [472] but saw nothing going on with = "TA" prop on either of those bands. =3B
You have allot of experienc= e on this low freq=2C does it sometimes open when higher frequencies don't?=
As Nickolas commented "congratulations" on terrific job! =3B
&nb= sp=3BStill Summer weather here-was 74 F during the day and 55F at midnight!=
May not be able to get home tonight till late so not sure if will get o= n till after 0400. =3B But will let you know as band may even get bette= r? =3B Hopefully Dex and John Andrews can get on am sure you would easi= ly capture them too-73 for now=2C Bob

 =3B

>=3B From: mike.dennison@= ntlworld.com
>=3B To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
>=3B Date: Sat=2C 12 Oct 2013 10:= 24:33 +0100
>=3B Subject: Re: LF: 74.5495 QRSS 60 for tonight...
&g= t=3B
>=3B Good signals at last! I could see you switch on at 2320=2C = drift a
>=3B couple of Hz LF to reach the correct frequency=2C then c= ontinue until
>=3B 0330 when you faded out=2C with a small reprise an= hour later. The
>=3B continous stream is shown on the attached scree= n shots. I make three
>=3B almost 100% callsigns and one totally comp= lete one.
>=3B
>=3B Well done and thanks.
>=3B
>=3B M= ike=2C G3XDV
>=3B =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>=3B
>=3B = >=3B WG2XRS/4 [XRS4] NY on till 0600 at least-Bob
>=3B
>=3B <= /span>

= --_1d038411-b838-48f8-b302-f8c8c5f4f0a2_--