Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.237.98 with SMTP id vb2csp41360igc; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 12:19:58 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.14.3.72 with SMTP id 48mr17551703eeg.34.1392495597618; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 12:19:57 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id h44si20675728eew.80.2014.02.15.12.19.57 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 12:19:57 -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 1WElhT-0005RJ-74 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 20:18:59 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1WElhS-0005RA-O5 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 20:18:58 +0000 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de ([129.206.210.211]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1WElhQ-0004WG-UD for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 20:18:57 +0000 Received: from crusoe.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (crusoe.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.22.248]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s1FKItmu013616 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 21:18:56 +0100 Received: from [129.206.22.206] (pc206.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.22.206]) by crusoe.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96197E0E17 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 21:18:55 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <52FFCBAF.6080408@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 21:18:55 +0100 From: schaefer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <1392470753.4354.YahooMailNeo@web133005.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>,<52FF91E7.7030406@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <52FFC3FD.2040601@freenet.de> In-Reply-To: <52FFC3FD.2040601@freenet.de> X-Spam-Score: -3.0 (---) 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: Hi Bob, Wolf, LF, Am 15.02.2014 20:46, schrieb wolf_dl4yhf: > Hello Bob and all, >> >> It's much easier to put a good sigs out on 472 than 137 or >> 73. Countless new modes to use and band conditions much more >> predictable on 600 meters. > > I agree as far as PEP-versus-ERP is concerned. [...] Content analysis details: (-3.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust [129.206.210.211 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.7 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: 60b21f5b7eb190e65b65540006a87038 Subject: Re: LF: LF Activity - G3XIZ Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020903060605080409000201" 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=HTML_20_30,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. --------------020903060605080409000201 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Bob, Wolf, LF, Am 15.02.2014 20:46, schrieb wolf_dl4yhf: > Hello Bob and all, >> >> It's much easier to put a good sigs out on 472 than 137 or >> 73. Countless new modes to use and band conditions much more >> predictable on 600 meters. > > I agree as far as PEP-versus-ERP is concerned. Hah! Was that a joke? That would mean that generating a high transmit power is easy? Why are then several stations running a Yuma TX (50W) into a poor antenna or modifying a IC-735 to get a few watts RF power on MF? If someone has a very limited antenna size and wants to run a solid signal anyway, why are there not many many more kW transmitters on air? Obviously it seems to be a problem for some to put a few MOSFETs together, with a suitable driver and low pass filter. A kW PA for LF/MF can be built for about 50 EUR but people prefer to _buy_ a ready to use transmitter. And thus, i have to conclude that it is not easy to put out a high PEP, not only PEP/ERP, at least for many stations. Bob shows what is possible on TA work on MF, allowing several stations here to get good decodes from him. With a 50W TX, as the PA, not the PA-driver, you would probably struggle to get a WSPR decode. Same for LF of course. Everything is easy if you know how to do. Same for the ERP. Just use a kite... But... 73, Stefan/DK7FC --------------020903060605080409000201 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Bob, Wolf, LF,

Am 15.02.2014 20:46, schrieb wolf_dl4yhf:
Hello Bob and all,

It's much easier to put a good sigs out on 472 than 137 or 73.  Countless new modes to use and band conditions much more predictable on 600 meters.

I agree as far as PEP-versus-ERP is concerned.

Hah! Was that a joke?
That would mean that generating a high transmit power is easy? Why are then several stations running a Yuma TX (50W) into a poor antenna or modifying a IC-735 to get a few watts RF power on MF? If someone has a very limited antenna size and wants to run a solid signal anyway, why are there not many many more kW transmitters on air? Obviously it seems to be a problem for some to put a few MOSFETs together, with a suitable driver and low pass filter. A kW PA for LF/MF can be built for about 50 EUR but people prefer to buy a ready to use transmitter. And thus, i have to conclude that it is not easy to put out a high PEP, not only PEP/ERP, at least for many stations.

Bob shows what is possible on TA work on MF, allowing several stations here to get good decodes from him. With a 50W TX, as the PA, not the PA-driver, you would probably struggle to get a WSPR decode. Same for LF of course.

Everything is easy if you know how to do. Same for the ERP. Just use a kite... But...

73, Stefan/DK7FC


--------------020903060605080409000201--