Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.237.98 with SMTP id vb2csp8652igc; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 15:39:00 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.180.207.239 with SMTP id lz15mr56043562wic.28.1388705940168; Thu, 02 Jan 2014 15:39:00 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id l11si22134858wjw.16.2014.01.02.15.38.59 for ; Thu, 02 Jan 2014 15:38:59 -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 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1VyrOm-0007PS-Ab for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 02 Jan 2014 23:09:56 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1VyrOl-0007PF-N1 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 02 Jan 2014 23:09:55 +0000 Received: from cpsmtpb-ews03.kpnxchange.com ([213.75.39.6]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1VyrOj-0002uC-5U for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 02 Jan 2014 23:09:54 +0000 Received: from cpsps-ews10.kpnxchange.com ([10.94.84.177]) by cpsmtpb-ews03.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.17514); Fri, 3 Jan 2014 00:09:52 +0100 Received: from CPSMTPM-TLF101.kpnxchange.com ([195.121.3.4]) by cpsps-ews10.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.17514); Fri, 3 Jan 2014 00:09:52 +0100 Received: from Extensa ([195.241.183.120]) by CPSMTPM-TLF101.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.17514); Fri, 3 Jan 2014 00:09:52 +0100 Message-ID: From: "PA1SDB, Peter" To: References: <8D0D5D2B851B331-43C-AE94@webmail-d241.sysops.aol.com> <8D0D5D361CC2379-1E98-B405@webmail-d279.sysops.aol.com> In-Reply-To: <8D0D5D361CC2379-1E98-B405@webmail-d279.sysops.aol.com> Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 23:09:51 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18645 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jan 2014 23:09:52.0567 (UTC) FILETIME=[BE346470:01CF080F] X-RcptDomain: blacksheep.org X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) 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: My grabber at 8270 is loading. Lets see what QRM does here between 8234 and 8305 Hz www.qsl.net/pa1sdb (did just start it at 23h00) ----- Original Message ----- From: Markus Vester To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2014 1:12 PM Subject: VLF: 8.3 kHz [...] Content analysis details: (1.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [213.75.39.6 listed in list.dnswl.org] 1.0 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: 0a8bac5594b583e1d7c1e245a9e3ea16 Subject: LF: Re: 8.3 kHz Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_1A28_01CF080F.BDD1AB00" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30, HTML_FONTCOLOR_UNKNOWN,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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_1A28_01CF080F.BDD1AB00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit My grabber at 8270 is loading. Lets see what QRM does here between 8234 and 8305 Hz www.qsl.net/pa1sdb (did just start it at 23h00) ----- Original Message ----- From: Markus Vester To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2014 1:12 PM Subject: VLF: 8.3 kHz Sorry, first email was corrupted because I had forgotten to fill in the subject line. 73, Markus -----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung----- Von: Markus Vester An: rsgb_lf_group Verschickt: Do, 2 Jan 2014 2:07 pm 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 modulated interference emitted by railway overhead lines, in addition to the usual 50 Hz related junk. 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.darc.de/vlf/vlfgrabber.htm Judging by the first hours, near 8280 Hz may be significantly better than 8270. But interference comes and goes with time, so longer observations are needed. Note that the heavy interference between 11 and 12 UT could have been exacerbated by my noise blanker settings as it is much less severe in the wideband window. At this time, I would like to encourage other receiver operators to closely investigate their noise levels just below 8.3 kHz. Best 73, Markus (DF6NM) ------=_NextPart_000_1A28_01CF080F.BDD1AB00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =EF=BB=BF
My grabber at 8270 is loading. Lets see what = QRM does=20 here between 8234 and 8305 Hz
www.qsl.net/pa1sdb
 
(did just start it at 23h00)
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Markus=20 Vester
Sent: Thursday, January 02, = 2014 1:12=20 PM
Subject: VLF: 8.3 kHz

Sorry, first=20 email was corrupted because I had forgotten to fill in the subject = line. 73,=20 Markus


-----Urspr=C3=BCngliche Mitteilung-----
Von: Markus = Vester=20 <markusvester@aol.com>
An: = rsgb_lf_group <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= >
Verschickt:=20 Do, 2 Jan 2014 2:07 pm

Dear Sub-9kHz'ers,
 
Marco = DD7PC=20 just made me aware of new German regulations, which also includes a = change of=20 the unallocated VLF range. The latest version of the = "Freqenzverordnung"=20 (FreqV)
http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/freqv/gesam= t.pdf
has=20 become effective already on August 27, 2013, and includes an = allocation of 8.3=20 to 9 kHz to the passive weather observing service (ie. lightning = locator=20 networks). Strictly speaking, this would make 8.97 kHz transmissions = illegal=20 in Germany (although there may be a loophole with national footnote 2=20 regarding "Induktionsfunkanlagen"). If I recall right, a similar legal = change=20 in the UK had been announced in this group some time ago, leading to = the=20 installation of some grabber windows around 8.27 kHz.
 
In = practice,=20 radiated powers achievable by amateurs (milliwatts at best) are ten = orders of=20 magnitudes below to that emitted by lightning events (100 megawatts). = The=20 chance of amateur interference to a broadband lightning locator would = thus be=20 absolutely neglegible. Even if somebody happened to activate his kite = within=20 one kilometer from a detector station, any further effect of = interference=20 would still be suppressed by redundancy in the lightning location = network.=20
 
Still, for=20 publicly visible work (like claiming first contacts etc), we should = consider=20 moving below 8.3 kHz. Of course there are disadvantages, like
- = local=20 interference eg. from railway lines seems to be much denser and = stronger at=20 lower frequency,
- at same antenna voltage, radiated power will be = 1.4 dB=20 less,
- more coil winding is required,
- acoustical side-effect = of=20 transmitting may be more disturbing,
... es nervt einfach!!
 
But = then, one=20 should always embrace change... positive aspects may be
- lower QRN = background in quiet locations,
- with common international = legislation, the=20 necessity of sub-9kHz NOV's in the UK might become obsolescent,
- = EA5HVK=20 might be motivated to provide an Opera version with flexible frequency = assignment.
 
In my = location,=20 I am mostly affected by 16.67 / 33.3 Hz modulated interference emitted = by=20 railway overhead lines, in addition to the usual 50 Hz related junk. = To=20 possibly identify a sweet spot with relatively low interference, I = have=20 temporarily shifted the frequency range of my faster VLF grabber=20 windows:
http://df6nm.darc.de/vlf/vlfgrabber.htm
Judging = by the=20 first hours, near 8280 Hz may be significantly better than 8270. But=20 interference comes and goes with time, so longer observations are = needed. Note=20 that the heavy interference between 11 and 12 UT could have been = exacerbated=20 by my noise blanker settings as it is much less severe in the wideband = window.=20 At this time, I would like to encourage other receiver operators to = closely=20 investigate their noise levels just below 8.3 kHz.
 
Best=20 73,
Markus (DF6NM)

 
------=_NextPart_000_1A28_01CF080F.BDD1AB00--