Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.237.98 with SMTP id vb2csp47548igc; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 15:46:57 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.180.219.44 with SMTP id pl12mr7602795wic.12.1392508016940; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 15:46:56 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id bg3si7152035wjb.57.2014.02.15.15.46.56 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 15:46:56 -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 1WEoOs-0006HX-V6 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 23:11:58 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1WEoOs-0006HO-FG for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 23:11:58 +0000 Received: from blu0-omc1-s37.blu0.hotmail.com ([65.55.116.48]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1WEoOq-0005BG-Jf for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 23:11:57 +0000 Received: from BLU180-W4 ([65.55.116.8]) by blu0-omc1-s37.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sat, 15 Feb 2014 15:11:54 -0800 X-TMN: [j3CUrn124qFS7dgec0dPX0dS/4C4Xbd3] X-Originating-Email: [rjraide@hotmail.com] Message-ID: From: Bob Raide To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 18:11:54 -0500 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <52FFD162.1090109@freenet.de> 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Feb 2014 23:11:54.0703 (UTC) FILETIME=[512DDDF0:01CF2AA3] 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: Of course it is easier to generate a more effective [stronger erp on a shorter wave than one with the same size ant on LF.] Lot less loading coil on 500 than 137 or 73 to bring ant to resonance. I am lucky to get 2 w erp from a KW on 73 or maybe 4 watts erp on 137 but I can make nearly 40 W erp on 500 with same ground system and ant. Bob [...] Content analysis details: (-0.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [65.55.116.48 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (rjraide[at]hotmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.7 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: 2015a9c9c70c0326c96b00c8a41f50f5 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_cfc98cbc-ab5e-471f-828a-b7621b94d138_" Subject: RE: LF: LF Activity - G3XIZ 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=FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD,HTML_20_30, HTML_MESSAGE,TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL 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 --_cfc98cbc-ab5e-471f-828a-b7621b94d138_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Of course it is easier to generate a more effective [stronger erp on a sho= rter wave than one with the same size ant on LF.] Lot less loading coil on 500 than 137 or 73 to bring ant to resonance. I a= m lucky to get 2 w erp from a KW on 73 or maybe 4 watts erp on 137 but I ca= n make nearly 40 W erp on 500 with same ground system and ant. Bob =20 Date: Sat=2C 15 Feb 2014 21:43:14 +0100 From: dl4yhf@freenet.de To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: Re: LF: LF Activity - G3XIZ =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Am 15.02.2014 21:34=2C schrieb=0A= wolf_dl4yhf: =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Am 15.02.2014 21:18=2C schrieb=0A= schaefer: =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Hi Bob=2C Wolf=2C LF=2C =0A= =20 =0A= Am 15.02.2014 20:46=2C schrieb wolf_dl4yhf:=0A= =0A= =0A= Hello Bob and all=2C =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =20 =0A= It's much easier to put a good sigs out on 472 than 137 or=0A= 73. Countless new modes to use and band conditions much=0A= more predictable on 600 meters.=20 =0A= =0A= =0A= =20 =0A= I agree as far as PEP-versus-ERP is concerned. =0A= =0A= =20 =0A= Hah! Was that a joke?=20 =0A= =0A= =20 =0A= That wasn't a joke.=20 =0A= That was a comparison of the efficiency of a LF antenna with an MF=0A= antenna. =0A= =20 =0A= Please explain why you think this is a joke. =0A= =20 =0A= Are you seriously saying that generating the same ERP on MF (now=0A= listen..) is EASIER THAN ON LF ?=20 =0A= =20 =0A= 73=2C =0A= Wolf . =0A= =20 =0A= =0A= easier on MF than on LF of course ! =0A= =20 = --_cfc98cbc-ab5e-471f-828a-b7621b94d138_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Of course it is easier to genera= te a more effective =3B [stronger erp on a shorter wave than one with t= he same size ant on LF.]
Lot less loading coil on 500 than 137 or 73 to = bring ant to resonance. =3B I am lucky to get 2 w erp from a KW on 73 o= r maybe 4 watts erp on 137 but I can make nearly 40 W erp on 500 with same&= nbsp=3B ground system and ant. =3B Bob
 =3B

Date: Sat=2C 15 Feb 2014 21:43:14 +0100
From: dl4yhf@freenet= .de
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: Re: LF: LF Activity - G= 3XIZ

=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A=
Am 15.02.2014 21:34=2C schrieb=0A= wolf_dl4yhf:
=0A=
=0A=
=0A= =0A=
Am 15.02.2014 21:18=2C schrieb=0A= schaefer:
=0A=
=0A=
=0A= =0A= Hi Bob=2C Wolf=2C LF=2C
=0A=
=0A= Am 15.02.2014 20:46=2C schrieb wolf_dl4yhf:=0A=
=0A= =0A=
Hello Bob and all=2C
=0A=
=0A=
=0A= =0A=

=0A= It's much easier to put a =3Bgood sigs out on =3B472 = than 137 or=0A= 73. =3B =3BCountless new modes to use and band condit= ions much=0A= more predictable on 600 meters.
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A= I agree as far as PEP-versus-ERP is concerned.
=0A=
=0A=
=0A= Hah! Was that a joke?
=0A=
=0A=
=0A= That wasn't a joke.
=0A= That was a comparison of the efficiency of a LF antenna with an MF=0A= antenna.
=0A=
=0A= Please explain why you think this is a joke.
=0A=
=0A= Are you seriously saying that generating the same ERP on MF (now=0A= listen..) is EASIER THAN ON LF ?
=0A=
=0A= 73=2C
=0A=  =3B Wolf .
=0A=
=0A=
=0A= easier on MF than on LF of course !
=0A=
= --_cfc98cbc-ab5e-471f-828a-b7621b94d138_--