Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.237.98 with SMTP id vb2csp37125igc; Fri, 3 Jan 2014 02:38:59 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.180.126.38 with SMTP id mv6mr1254111wib.59.1388745538885; Fri, 03 Jan 2014 02:38:58 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id gk11si576398wic.71.2014.01.03.02.38.58 for ; Fri, 03 Jan 2014 02:38:58 -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=@kabelmail.de Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Vz1ia-0001G0-Lw for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 03 Jan 2014 10:11:04 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Vz1iZ-0001Fr-S5 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 03 Jan 2014 10:11:03 +0000 Received: from smtpa1.mediabeam.com ([194.25.41.13] helo=smtpa2.mediabeam.com) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Vz1iW-0004Ku-GA for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 03 Jan 2014 10:11:02 +0000 Received: from IMAP1 (balancer7.mediabeam.com [10.100.1.80]) by smtpa2.mediabeam.com (8.13.8/8.13.1) with ESMTP id s03AAwE8031603 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2014 11:10:58 +0100 X-DKIM-Result: Domain=kabelmail.de Result=Signature OK DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kabelmail.de; s=mail; t=1388743858; bh=8b7xpuLs1rxHwnj6g4KHmG6xPt4iXHmWMi6vySRKoTU=; h=Date:From:To:Subject; b=dMOLgl/UFh04S6YH3uqJZePO/vu/fJ4X5SgB3CV/grQEabvo1dFRdoh+lIXJ3tkzs kGOj2FPovxxJk9bL7NrsFjv0FMIhKPmhndL9y1sI/EDdTVeNHzRk945Z5qE4Uh2ib/ fThOAEBXH6JWp5xSBhbSUvr/uJq83pgNJo8E1Z/c= Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2014 11:10:56 +0100 From: uwe-jannsen@kabelmail.de To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Message-ID: <77b5cb75512341e2ae8e3de50ce543c6@kabelmail.de> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) MIME-Version: 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: OK, Peter and all, today Ill adjust the aerial system at 8270Hz. afterwards doing som e tests in modes carrier only and Op-4H. GL Uwe/dj8wx Von: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Gesendet: 02.01.2014 23:09 An: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Betreff: LF: Re: 8.3 kHz [...] 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 [194.25.41.13 listed in list.dnswl.org] -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: 96c1546db5321e0e52b4c66d17932f07 Subject: Re: LF: Re: 8.3 kHz Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----2A7BC8BB6D4348719097A76FF40CCEAB" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.6 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE, NO_REAL_NAME,PRIORITY_NO_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 ------2A7BC8BB6D4348719097A76FF40CCEAB Content-type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable OK, Peter and all, today Ill adjust the aerial system at 8270Hz=2E afterwards doing som e= tests in modes carrier only and Op-4H=2E GL Uwe/dj8wx Von: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep=2Eorg Gesendet: 02=2E01=2E2014 23:09 An: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep=2Eorg Betreff: LF: Re: 8=2E3 kHz My grabber at 8270 is loading=2E Lets see what QRM does here between 82= 34 and 8305 Hz=20 www=2Eqsl=2Enet/pa1sdb =20 (did just start it at 23h00)=20 ----- Original Message ----- =20 From: Markus Vester =20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep=2Eorg =20 Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2014 1:12 PM=20 Subject: VLF: 8=2E3 kHz=20 Sorry, first email was corrupted because I had forgotten to fill in the= subject line=2E 73, Markus=20 -----Urspr=FCngliche Mitteilung-----=20 Von: Markus Vester An: rsgb_lf_group Verschickt: Do, 2 Jan 2014 2:07 pm Dear Sub-9kHz'ers,=20 Marco DD7PC just made me aware of new German regulations, which also in= cludes a change of the unallocated VLF range=2E The latest version of t= he "Freqenzverordnung" (FreqV)=20 http://www=2Egesetze-im-internet=2Ede/bundesrecht/freqv/gesamt=2Epdf has become effective already on August 27, 2013, and includes an alloc= ation of 8=2E3 to 9 kHz to the passive weather observing service (ie=2E= lightning locator networks)=2E Strictly speaking, this would make 8=2E= 97 kHz transmissions illegal in Germany (although there may be a loopho= le with national footnote 2 regarding "Induktionsfunkanlagen")=2E If I = recall right, a similar legal change in the UK had been announced in th= is group some time ago, leading to the installation of some grabber win= dows around 8=2E27 kHz=2E =20 In practice, radiated powers achievable by amateurs (milliwatts at best= ) are ten orders of magnitudes below to that emitted by lightning event= s (100 megawatts)=2E The chance of amateur interference to a broadband = lightning locator would thus be absolutely neglegible=2E Even if somebo= dy happened to activate his kite within one kilometer from a detector s= tation, any further effect of interference would still be suppressed by= redundancy in the lightning location network=2E =20 Still, for publicly visible work (like claiming first contacts etc), we= should consider moving below 8=2E3 kHz=2E Of course there are disadvan= tages, like - local interference eg=2E from railway lines seems to be much denser = and stronger at lower frequency,=20 - at same antenna voltage, radiated power will be 1=2E4 dB less, - more coil winding is required, - acoustical side-effect of transmitting may be more disturbing,=20 =2E=2E=2E es nervt einfach!!=20 But then, one should always embrace change=2E=2E=2E positive aspects ma= y be - lower QRN background in quiet locations, - with common international legislation, the necessity of sub-9kHz NOV= 's in the UK might become obsolescent, - EA5HVK might be motivated to provide an Opera version with flexible = frequency assignment=2E =20 In my location, I am mostly affected by 16=2E67 / 33=2E3 Hz modulated i= nterference emitted by railway overhead lines, in addition to the usual= 50 Hz related junk=2E To possibly identify a sweet spot with relativel= y low interference, I have temporarily shifted the frequency range of m= y faster VLF grabber windows: http://df6nm=2Edarc=2Ede/vlf/vlfgrabber=2Ehtm Judging by the first hours, near 8280 Hz may be significantly better t= han 8270=2E But interference comes and goes with time, so longer observ= ations are needed=2E Note that the heavy interference between 11 and 12= UT could have been exacerbated by my noise blanker settings as it is m= uch less severe in the wideband window=2E At this time, I would like to= encourage other receiver operators to closely investigate their noise = levels just below 8=2E3 kHz=2E Best 73, Markus (DF6NM) ------2A7BC8BB6D4348719097A76FF40CCEAB Content-type: text/html; charset=Windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
OK, Peter and all,
today Ill adjust the aerial system at 8270Hz=2E afterwards doing som e = tests in modes carrier only and Op-4H=2E
GL
Uwe/dj8wx
Von: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep=2Eorg
Gesendet: 02=2E01=2E2014 23:09
An: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep=2Eorg
Betreff: LF: Re: 8=2E3 kHz

My grabber at 8270 is loadin= g=2E Lets see what QRM does here between 8234 and 8305 Hz
 
(did just start it at 23h00)=
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, Janua= ry 02, 2014 1:12 PM
Subject: VLF: 8=2E3 k= Hz

Sorry= , first email was corrupted because I had forgotten to fill in the subject line= =2E 73, Markus


-----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung-----
Von: Markus Vester <markusvester@aol=2Ecom>
An: rsgb_lf_group <rsg= b_lf_group@blacksheep=2Eorg>
Verschickt: Do, 2 Jan 2014 2:07 pm

Dear Sub-9kHz'ers,<= /div>
 = ;
Marco= DD7PC just made me aware of new German regulations, which also includes a cha= nge of the unallocated VLF range=2E The latest version of the "Freqenzverordnu= ng" (FreqV)
http://www=2Egesetze-im-internet=2Ede/bunde= srecht/freqv/gesamt=2Epdf
has become effective already on August 27, 2013, and includes an allocation= of 8=2E3 to 9 kHz to the passive weather observing service (ie=2E lightning loca= tor networks)=2E Strictly speaking, this would make 8=2E97 kHz transmission= s illegal in Germany (although there may be a loophole with national footnote 2 regarding "Induktionsfunkanlagen")=2E If I recall right, a similar lega= l change in the UK had been announced in this group some time ago, leading to th= e installation of some grabber windows around 8=2E27 kHz=2E
 = ;
In pr= actice, radiated powers achievable by amateurs (milliwatts at best) are ten ord= ers of magnitudes below to that emitted by lightning events (100 megawatts)=2E= The chance of amateur interference to a broadband lightning locator would t= hus be absolutely neglegible=2E Even if somebody happened to activate his kite= within one kilometer from a detector station, any further effect of interferen= ce would still be suppressed by redundancy in the lightning location netwo= rk=2E
 = ;
Still= , for publicly visible work (like claiming first contacts etc), we should con= sider moving below 8=2E3 kHz=2E Of course there are disadvantages, like
- local interference eg=2E from railway lines seems to be much denser and stron= ger at lower frequency,
- at same antenna voltage, radiated power will be 1=2E4 dB less,
- more coil winding is required,
- acoustical side-effect of transmitting may be more disturbing,
=2E=2E=2E es nervt einfach!!
 = ;
But t= hen, one should always embrace change=2E=2E=2E positive aspects may be
- lower QRN background in quiet locations,
- with common international legislation, the necessity of sub-9kHz NOV's in the UK might become obsolescent,
- EA5HVK might be motivated to provide an Opera version with flexible frequency assignment=2E
 = ;
In my= location, I am mostly affected by 16=2E67 / 33=2E3 Hz modulated interference emit= ted by railway overhead lines, in addition to the usual 50 Hz related junk=2E = To possibly identify a sweet spot with relatively low interference, I have temporarily shifted the frequency range of my faster VLF grabber windows:
http://df6nm=2Edarc=2Ede/vlf/vlfgrabber=2Ehtm
Judging by the first hours, near 8280 Hz may be significantly better than 8270=2E But interference comes and goes with time, so longer observations are neede= d=2E Note that the heavy interference between 11 and 12 UT could have been exacer= bated by my noise blanker settings as it is much less severe in the wideband = window=2E At this time, I would like to encourage other receiver operators to clo= sely investigate their noise levels just below 8=2E3 kHz=2E
 
Best 73,
Markus (DF6NM)

 
------2A7BC8BB6D4348719097A76FF40CCEAB--