Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.237.98 with SMTP id vb2csp259340igc; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 20:21:37 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.194.85.168 with SMTP id i8mr6176418wjz.81.1394079696819; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 20:21:36 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id lr5si3135800wjb.138.2014.03.05.20.21.35 for ; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 20:21:36 -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 1WLPJ8-0006J8-Cy for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2014 03:49:18 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1WLPJ7-0006Iz-QN for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2014 03:49:17 +0000 Received: from blu0-omc1-s7.blu0.hotmail.com ([65.55.116.18]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WLPI3-0000zA-F5 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2014 03:49:16 +0000 Received: from BLU180-W56 ([65.55.116.7]) by blu0-omc1-s7.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 5 Mar 2014 19:47:50 -0800 X-TMN: [dH1esKNVIiXO38UK4QtGCG27At+QkavI] X-Originating-Email: [rjraide@hotmail.com] Message-ID: From: Bob Raide To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 22:47:49 -0500 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: References: <5316EA0B.4020001@abelian.org> <004001cf3870$27cb9620$6401a8c0@JAYDELL> <53173FCD.9010808@abelian.org> <5317A9C5.2050303@tele2.se>, MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Mar 2014 03:47:50.0239 (UTC) FILETIME=[D87BAEF0:01CF38EE] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) 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: Markus; It is even worse using the same short ant, say that I am using on 29 at 800 w. I would say a power reduction of several db would be required and added to your calculated signal reduction when going from 29 to 9 kHz-Bob [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [65.55.116.18 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 -0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: 54f9a9b24d9d5f31a632377c3b90b222 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_c9624274-5f5d-4a9e-9823-ab0eea65ff11_" Subject: RE: LF: Re: VLF 29501, signal? X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD,HTML_30_40, 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 --_c9624274-5f5d-4a9e-9823-ab0eea65ff11_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Markus=3B It is even worse using the same short ant=2C say that I am using on 29 at 8= 00 w. I would say a power reduction of several db would be required and ad= ded to your calculated signal reduction when going from 29 to 9 kHz-Bob =20 From: markusvester@aol.com To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Date: Thu=2C 6 Mar 2014 00:08:04 +0100 Subject: Re: LF: Re: VLF 29501=2C signal? =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Johan=2C=0A= =0A= unfortunately the difference between "upper and =0A= lower" VLF will be much larger than that. Operating a small electric =0A= antenna at the same voltage limit=2C radiated power scales with the =0A= fourth power of frequency. A current limited TX loop would scale the same w= ay. =0A= Thus going from 29.5 to 8.27 kHz will reduce the fieldstrength by 22 =0A= dB. In addition=2C background noise from distant static tends =0A= to peak around 9 =0A= kHz=2C which may easily make another 10 dB SNR =0A= deterioration.=0A= =0A= But well=2C challenges are there =0A= for us to meet them =3B-)=0A= =0A= Best 73=2C=0A= Markus=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= From: Johan Bodin =0A= Sent: Wednesday=2C March 05=2C 2014 11:48 PM=0A= To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org =0A= =0A= Subject: Re: LF: Re: VLF 29501=2C signal?=0A= Yes=2C an impressive =0A= achievement indeed=2C congratulations to all involved! Wow is the word! The =0A= 24dB S/N ratio on Dex' signal exceeded all my expectations! 24 dB S/N is =0A= "armchair copy". It would be interesting to actually listen to a spectrally =0A= shifted and time compressed version of the signal. Can you do that on your =0A= Linux box Paul? Not for scientific purposes but for pure sheer joy =0A= :-) Given 24dB S/N headroom at 29.5kHz=2C sub 9 kHz TA is probably not too =0A= far away! The TX antenna would be no more than ~10dB down compared to =0A= 30k. 73 Johan SM6LKM ... = --_c9624274-5f5d-4a9e-9823-ab0eea65ff11_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Markus=3B
It is even worse us= ing the same short ant=2C say that I am using on 29 at 800 w. =3B I wou= ld say a power reduction of several db would be required and added to your = calculated signal reduction when going from 29 to 9 kHz-Bob
 =3B
=
From: markusvester@aol.com
To: rsgb_lf_grou= p@blacksheep.org
Date: Thu=2C 6 Mar 2014 00:08:04 +0100
Subject: Re: = LF: Re: VLF 29501=2C signal?

=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A=
Johan=2C
=0A=
 =3B
=0A=
unfortunately the difference between "= upper and =0A= lower" VLF will be much larger than that. Operating a small electric =0A= antenna =3Bat the same voltage limit=2C =3Bradiated power scales wi= th the =0A= fourth power of frequency. A current limited TX loop would scale the same w= ay. =0A= Thus going from 29.5 to 8.27 kHz =3Bwill =3Breduce the fieldstrengt= h by 22 =0A= dB. =3BIn addition=2C background noise from distant static =3Btends= =0A= to =3Bpeak around 9 =0A= kHz=2C =3Bwhich =3Bmay =3Beasily =3Bmake =3Banother&nbs= p=3B10 dB SNR =0A= deterioration.
=0A=
 =3B
=0A=
But well=2C challenges are there =0A= for us to meet them =3B-)
=0A=
 =3B
=0A=
Best 73=2C
=0A=
Markus
=0A=
=0A=

=0A=
=0A=
From: Johan Bodin =0A=
Sent: Wednesday=2C March 05=2C 2014 11:48 PM
=0A= =0A=
Subject: Re: LF: Re: VLF 29501=2C signal?
=0A=

Yes=2C an impressive =0A= achievement indeed=2C congratulations to all involved!

Wow is the wo= rd! The =0A= 24dB S/N ratio on Dex' signal exceeded all my
expectations! 24 dB S/N is= =0A= "armchair copy". It would be interesting to
actually listen to a spectra= lly =0A= shifted and time compressed version of
the signal. Can you do that on yo= ur =0A= Linux box Paul? Not for scientific
purposes but for pure sheer joy =0A= :-)

Given 24dB S/N headroom at 29.5kHz=2C sub 9 kHz TA is probably n= ot too =0A= far
away! The TX antenna would be no more than ~10dB down compared to = =0A= 30k.

73
Johan SM6LKM

...
= --_c9624274-5f5d-4a9e-9823-ab0eea65ff11_--