Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.237.98 with SMTP id vb2csp48883igc; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 16:31:55 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.181.12.16 with SMTP id em16mr7610536wid.3.1392510715166; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 16:31:55 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id df4si7209972wjc.74.2014.02.15.16.31.54 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 16:31:55 -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 1WEpEv-0006QU-Oa for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 00:05:45 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1WEpEv-0006QK-7a for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 00:05:45 +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 1WEpEt-0005Kz-Je for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 00:05:44 +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 s1G05g3O015628 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 01:05:42 +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 568D8E0E18 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 01:05:42 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <530000D6.3080004@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 01:05:42 +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> <52FFCBAF.6080408@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <52FFCF60.50609@freenet.de> <52FFD162.1090109@freenet.de> In-Reply-To: <52FFD162.1090109@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 Wolf, Ah, now i see, it was my misunderstanding, sorry. 73, Stefan/DK7FC [...] 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: d63ea50e288c5ecb9bd7a86eeabe94f2 Subject: Re: LF: LF Activity - G3XIZ Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040707050900040304050402" 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_40_50,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. --------------040707050900040304050402 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Wolf, Ah, now i see, it was my misunderstanding, sorry. 73, Stefan/DK7FC Am 15.02.2014 21:43, schrieb wolf_dl4yhf: > Am 15.02.2014 21:34, schrieb wolf_dl4yhf: >> Am 15.02.2014 21:18, schrieb schaefer: >>> 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 wasn't a joke. >> That was a comparison of the efficiency of a LF antenna with an MF >> antenna. >> >> Please explain why you think this is a joke. >> >> Are you seriously saying that generating the same ERP on MF (now >> listen..) is EASIER THAN ON LF ? >> >> 73, >> Wolf . >> > easier on MF than on LF of course ! > --------------040707050900040304050402 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Wolf,

Ah, now i see, it was my misunderstanding, sorry.

73, Stefan/DK7FC

Am 15.02.2014 21:43, schrieb wolf_dl4yhf:
Am 15.02.2014 21:34, schrieb wolf_dl4yhf:
Am 15.02.2014 21:18, schrieb schaefer:
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 wasn't a joke.
That was a comparison of the efficiency of a LF antenna with an MF antenna.

Please explain why you think this is a joke.

Are you seriously saying that generating the same ERP on MF (now listen..) is EASIER THAN ON LF ?

73,
  Wolf .

easier on MF than on LF of course !

--------------040707050900040304050402--