Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.237.98 with SMTP id vb2csp991580igc; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 05:39:01 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.181.12.20 with SMTP id em20mr55078363wid.0.1388669940699; Thu, 02 Jan 2014 05:39:00 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id q19si21565962wib.32.2014.01.02.05.38.59 for ; Thu, 02 Jan 2014 05:39:00 -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=fail header.i=@mx.aol.com Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Vyhzr-0004gs-3M for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 02 Jan 2014 13:07:35 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Vyhzq-0004gj-GT for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 02 Jan 2014 13:07:34 +0000 Received: from omr-d01.mx.aol.com ([205.188.252.208]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Vyhzm-0001Hy-SE for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 02 Jan 2014 13:07:33 +0000 Received: from mtaomg-mac02.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-mac02.mx.aol.com [172.26.222.208]) by omr-d01.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id BF48C700000B9 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 08:07:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from core-dfa001c.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-dfa001.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.54.131]) by mtaomg-mac02.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 785F838000083 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 08:07:27 -0500 (EST) To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI X-MB-Message-Type: User MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Markus Vester X-Mailer: Webmail 38252-BASIC Received: from 194.138.39.56 by webmail-d241.sysops.aol.com (205.188.17.39) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Thu, 02 Jan 2014 08:07:27 -0500 Message-Id: <8D0D5D2B851B331-43C-AE94@webmail-d241.sysops.aol.com> X-Originating-IP: [194.138.39.56] Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 08:07:27 -0500 (EST) x-aol-global-disposition: G DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20121107; t=1388668047; bh=/hgopeQSjkhCwGGrzVU6UZ3pIDxLYG8Lpt3Y/3IKyAo=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-Id:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Db+3ExBEQaVC4UAulvJpyHi2/nzycihJyJHMhPD1N9bXZNKEYt8J6cCMKH4wh7gSZ jLcEE5diYi/h6kXmjj5DU/YNfUfU5qJg/LyUf5ibnEQo76cxgfZe2akLtCEwKevKKd UVRx50g6z9J7W4stYmG7yHNoW+ACAdbifI7mVvxY= x-aol-sid: 3039ac1aded052c5648f258f X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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: Dear Sub-9kHz'ers, ? Marco DD7PC just made me aware of new German regulations, which also includes a change of the unallocated VLF range. The latest version of the "Freqenzverordnung" (FreqV) http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/freqv/gesamt.pdf has become effective already on August 27, 2013, and includes an allocation of 8.3 to 9 kHz to the passive weather observing service (ie. lightning locator networks). Strictly speaking, this would make 8.97 kHz transmissions illegal in Germany (although there may be a loophole with national footnote 2 regarding "Induktionsfunkanlagen"). If I recall right, a similar legal change in the UK had been announced in this group some time ago, leading to the installation of some grabber windows around 8.27 kHz. ? In practice, radiated powers achievable by amateurs (milliwatts at best) are ten orders of magnitudes below to that emitted by lightning events (100 megawatts). The chance of amateur interference to a broadband lightning locator would thus be absolutely neglegible. Even if somebody happened to activate his kite within one kilometer from a detector station, any further effect of interference would still be suppressed by redundancy in the lightning location network. ? Still, for publicly visible work (like claiming first contacts etc), we should consider moving below 8.3 kHz. Of course there are disadvantages, like - local interference eg. from railway lines seems to be much denser and stronger at lower frequency, - at same antenna voltage, radiated power will be 1.4 dB less, - more coil winding is required, - acoustical side-effect of transmitting may be more disturbing, ... es nervt einfach!! ? But then, one should always embrace change... 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. ? In my location, I am mostly affected by 16.67 / 33.3 Hz [...] Content analysis details: (-0.5 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [205.188.252.208 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 -0.5 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: b2000330e4064ca60a9f57e731b892da Subject: LF: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8D0D5D2B8541520_43C_28510_webmail-d241.sysops.aol.com" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=HTML_FONTCOLOR_UNKNOWN, HTML_MESSAGE 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----------MB_8D0D5D2B8541520_43C_28510_webmail-d241.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dear Sub-9kHz'ers, ? Marco DD7PC just made me aware of new German regulations, which also includ= es a change of the unallocated VLF range. The latest version of the "Freqen= zverordnung" (FreqV)=20 http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/freqv/gesamt.pdf has become effective already on August 27, 2013, and includes an allocation= of 8.3 to 9 kHz to the passive weather observing service (ie. lightning lo= cator networks). Strictly speaking, this would make 8.97 kHz transmissions = illegal in Germany (although there may be a loophole with national footnote= 2 regarding "Induktionsfunkanlagen"). If I recall right, a similar legal c= hange in the UK had been announced in this group some time ago, leading to = the installation of some grabber windows around 8.27 kHz.=20 ? In practice, radiated powers achievable by amateurs (milliwatts at best) ar= e ten orders of magnitudes below to that emitted by lightning events (100 m= egawatts). The chance of amateur interference to a broadband lightning loca= tor would thus be absolutely neglegible. Even if somebody happened to activ= ate his kite within one kilometer from a detector station, any further effe= ct of interference would still be suppressed by redundancy in the lightning= location network.=20 ? Still, for publicly visible work (like claiming first contacts etc), we sho= uld consider moving below 8.3 kHz. Of course there are disadvantages, like - local interference eg. from railway lines seems to be much denser and str= onger at lower frequency,=20 - at same antenna voltage, radiated power will be 1.4 dB less, - more coil winding is required, - acoustical side-effect of transmitting may be more disturbing,=20 ... es nervt einfach!! ? But then, one should always embrace change... 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 frequ= ency assignment.=20 ? In my location, I am mostly affected by 16.67 / 33.3 Hz modulated interfere= nce emitted by railway overhead lines, in addition to the usual 50 Hz relat= ed junk. To possibly identify a sweet spot with relatively low interference= , I have temporarily shifted the frequency range of my faster VLF grabber w= indows: http://df6nm.darc.de/vlf/vlfgrabber.htm Judging by the first hours, near 8280 Hz may be significantly better than 8= 270. But interference comes and goes with time, so longer observations are = needed. Note that the heavy interference between 11 and 12 UT could have be= en exacerbated by my noise blanker settings as it is much less severe in th= e wideband window. At this time, I would like to encourage other receiver o= perators to closely investigate their noise levels just below 8.3 kHz. ? Best 73, Markus (DF6NM) ----------MB_8D0D5D2B8541520_43C_28510_webmail-d241.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Dear Sub-9kHz'ers,
 
Marco DD7P= C just made me aware of new German regulations, which also includes a chang= e of the unallocated VLF range. The latest version of the "Freqenzverordnun= g" (FreqV)
= http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/freqv/gesamt.pdf
has become effective already on August 27, 2013, and includes an allocation= of 8.3 to 9 kHz to the passive weather observing service (ie. lightning lo= cator networks). Strictly speaking, this would make 8.97 kHz transmissions = illegal in Germany (although there may be a loophole with national footnote= 2 regarding "Induktionsfunkanlagen"). If I recall right, a similar legal c= hange in the UK had been announced in this group some time ago, leading to = the installation of some grabber windows around 8.27 kHz.
 
In practic= e, radiated powers achievable by amateurs (milliwatts at best) are ten orde= rs of magnitudes below to that emitted by lightning events (100 megawatts).= The chance of amateur interference to a broadband lightning locator would = thus be absolutely neglegible. Even if somebody happened to activate his ki= te within one kilometer from a detector station, any further effect of inte= rference would still be suppressed by redundancy in the lightning location = network.
 
Still, for= publicly visible work (like claiming first contacts etc), we should consid= er moving below 8.3 kHz. Of course there are disadvantages, like
- local interference eg. from railway lines seems to be much denser and str= onger at lower frequency,
- at same antenna voltage, radiated power will be 1.4 dB less,
- more coil winding is required,
- acoustical side-effect of transmitting may be more disturbing,
... es nervt einfach!!
 
But then, = one should always embrace change... 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 frequ= ency assignment.
 
In my loca= tion, I am mostly affected by 16.67 / 33.3 Hz modulated interference emitte= d by railway overhead lines, in addition to the usual 50 Hz related junk. T= o possibly identify a sweet spot with relatively low interference, I have t= emporarily shifted the frequency range of my faster VLF grabber windows: http://df6nm.darc.de/vl= f/vlfgrabber.htm
Judging by the first hours, near 8280 Hz may be significantly better than 8= 270. But interference comes and goes with time, so longer observations are = needed. Note that the heavy interference between 11 and 12 UT could have be= en exacerbated by my noise blanker settings as it is much less severe in th= e wideband window. At this time, I would like to encourage other receiver o= perators to closely investigate their noise levels just below 8.3 kHz.
 
Best 73,
Markus (DF6NM)


----------MB_8D0D5D2B8541520_43C_28510_webmail-d241.sysops.aol.com--