Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.237.98 with SMTP id vb2csp49811igc; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 15:03:41 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.194.109.68 with SMTP id hq4mr2743318wjb.12.1390950220517; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 15:03:40 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id q3si321283wia.67.2014.01.28.15.03.39 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 15:03:40 -0800 (PST) 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=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1W8HJC-0004Oa-Rd for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 22:39:06 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1W8HJC-0004OR-9x for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 22:39:06 +0000 Received: from mail-wg0-f48.google.com ([74.125.82.48]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1W8HJA-0006Zh-7Q for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 22:39:05 +0000 Received: by mail-wg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id x13so2064171wgg.27 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 14:39:03 -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=subject:references:from:content-type:in-reply-to:message-id:date:to :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=kSzNwEAMRkCsGwKpkL4tbwqAs1O735VkouBSJh30WVQ=; b=Uk8PaeRmTH2R7Nstw9ylDdAvm3ZwXuSaYcP3epRyd1Tg3zcEwMmprsrcSX4ltFfsn0 rZ6h+/Yie1ZFoCU2Xwa60deLaP2uURE8HixmO1AJ6TObO/mo+nUmYyLRju15xEze9D/g t6xggqNNK5OX5pUy12wB8CBeHLsQstx8kvRyrNjrun3wl7AzSSjbtnEBwYtwAYZCY5yQ ZzrwG/0Cxtp8lHJsr3QLyyCyWtIdvi26plSEeABYffu/FD6gcW/OVvsoCfyffKc8/4AY vnmtCcxwuiVzz2OWrgc13gGsyTDAF+ZgTtgNHW18xHM16uu7ztnpQEGgVWHI8sNhB81r 2/HQ== X-Received: by 10.180.101.131 with SMTP id fg3mr2780702wib.33.1390948743108; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 14:39:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.4] (cpc9-cmbg17-2-0-cust718.5-4.cable.virginm.net. [86.30.34.207]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id cm5sm1021989wid.5.2014.01.28.14.39.01 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 28 Jan 2014 14:39:02 -0800 (PST) References: <52E7C438.7050205@psk31.plus.com> <1390936735.43137.YahooMailNeo@web171404.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> From: Roger Lapthorn X-Mailer: iPod Mail (10A523) In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <05E0FB1A-772C-4605-9114-A1D625F3C756@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 22:39:00 +0000 To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) 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: Because I assume above 8.3kHz I need an NoV or licence, unless exempt through some other loophole. 73s Roger G3XBM On 28 Jan 2014, at 21:43, "Markus Vester" wrote: [...] 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 [74.125.82.48 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 MIME_QP_LONG_LINE RAW: Quoted-printable line longer than 76 chars 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Scan-Signature: 9be3f060697a097db7a337109fbeece1 Subject: Re: LF: Below 8.3kHz in the UK freuency allocations Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-FF54BA24-C036-490C-9F33-B4A280BAE81C 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=0.8 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40,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 --Apple-Mail-FF54BA24-C036-490C-9F33-B4A280BAE81C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Because I assume above 8.3kHz I need an NoV or licence, unless exempt throug= h some other loophole. 73s Roger G3XBM On 28 Jan 2014, at 21:43, "Markus Vester" wrote: > Laura, Roger, > =20 > but then, why not transmit on 8.9 kHz? Or 30 kHz, or any other unused freq= uency? The ERP we can achieve on (V)LF will anyhow be so weak that no one wi= ll notice it, unless he's really looking for it. > =20 > 73, Markus > =20 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Roger Lapthorn > To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 10:34 PM > Subject: Re: Re: LF: Below 8.3kHz in the UK freuency allocations >=20 > =C3=9Des, I agree with Laura. The former, Dave, is not achievable in the r= eal world.=20 >=20 > As long as no undue interference (an OFCOM phrase, well used) to official= services is caused, everyone is happy. In reality it is easy to suppress si= gnals above 8.3kHz down a very long way.=20 >=20 > 73s > Roger G3XBM >=20 >=20 > On 28 January 2014 21:18, LZ wrote: >> Dave, >>=20 >> You wrote: >> > ... In other words NO signal must escape that is higher than that 8.3 k= Hz limit -That is it!! -end of!! Dave=20 >>=20 >> No, wrong. >> Right: "In other words NO *interfering* signal must escape that is higher= than that 8.3 kHz limit..." >>=20 >> Laura >>=20 >> Gesandt von mein PettiFogPhone >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > 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 >=20 --Apple-Mail-FF54BA24-C036-490C-9F33-B4A280BAE81C Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Because I assume above 8.3kHz I need a= n NoV or licence, unless exempt through some other loophole.

<= /div>
73s
Roger G3XBM

On 28 Jan 2014, at 21:43, "= Markus Vester" <markusvester@aol.= com> wrote:

Laura, Roger,
 
but then, why not transmit on 8.9 kHz? O= r 30 kHz,=20 or any other unused frequency? The ERP we can achieve on (V)LF will any= how=20 be so weak that no one will notice it, unless he's really looking for=20 it.
 
73, Markus
 
----- Original Message -----=20
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 10:34 PM
Subject: Re: Re: LF: Below 8.3kHz in the UK freuency=20 allocations

=C3=9Des, I agree with Laura. The former, Dave, is not achievable in th= e real=20 world.

As long as no undue interference (an OFCOM phrase, well=20 used)  to official services is caused, everyone is happy. In reality it= is=20 easy to suppress signals above 8.3kHz down a very long way.=20

73s
Roger G3XBM


On 28 January 2014 21:18, LZ &l= t;Laura.Zepam@gmx.de= >=20 wrote:
Dave,

You wrote:
> ..= . In other words NO signal=20 must escape that is higher than that 8.3 kHz limit -That is it!!= =20 -end of!! Dave 

No, wrong.
Right: "In other words NO=20= *interfering* signal must escape that is higher than that 8.3 kHz=20 limit..."

Laura

Gesandt von mein=20 PettiFogPhone




--
= --Apple-Mail-FF54BA24-C036-490C-9F33-B4A280BAE81C--