Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.203.68 with SMTP id ko4csp208140igc; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 05:57:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.204.167.81 with SMTP id p17mr6036bky.104.1397566666193; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 05:57:46 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id bo8si6233268wjb.27.2014.04.15.05.57.45 for ; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 05:57:46 -0700 (PDT) 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; dkim=fail (test mode) header.i=@btinternet.com Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Wa2Se-0008P5-QV for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:27:36 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Wa2Se-0008Ow-D1 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:27:36 +0100 Received: from smtpout19.bt.lon5.cpcloud.co.uk ([65.20.0.139]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1Wa2Sc-000118-Fl for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:27:35 +0100 X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A090206.534D25B4.0148,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0 X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=12/97,refid=2.7.2:2014.3.24.80314:17:12.455,ip=,rules=__HAS_MSGID, __SANE_MSGID, MSGID_32HEX_LC, INVALID_MSGID_NO_FQDN, __MSGID_32HEX, __HAS_FROM, __PHISH_FROM2, __FRAUD_WEBMAIL_FROM, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __TO_NO_NAME, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __MIME_VERSION, __CT, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN, __CTE, __HAS_X_PRIORITY, __HAS_MSMAIL_PRI, __HAS_X_MAILER, USER_AGENT_OE, __OUTLOOK_MUA_1, __USER_AGENT_MS_GENERIC, __ANY_URI, LINK_TO_IMAGE, __FRAUD_BODY_WEBMAIL, __CP_URI_IN_BODY, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE, __FORWARDED_MSG, BODY_SIZE_1300_1399, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY, __URI_NS, HTML_00_01, HTML_00_10, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS, __PHISH_FROM, __OUTLOOK_MUA, __PHISH_SPEAR_STRUCTURE_1, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS, __FRAUD_WEBMAIL, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown Received: from gnat (86.136.200.62) by smtpout19.bt.lon5.cpcloud.co.uk (8.6.100.99.10223) (authenticated as alan.melia@btinternet.com) id 53184E7502021F9C for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:27:32 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btinternet.com; s=btcpcloud; t=1397564854; bh=IyupQ2EIcneuRL7vPUypU82Pf5Od6Qu5FtcsOvolsp0=; h=Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer; b=ft0YBp3vL6mexzFkhFow5FDMHvjmBiTDarR/PIkgWcrveDo9ajl91ltaQq8/rJexiD+GLZ3kwXt39LgAtQXs2XXWCF7A4Ngfjl0ycxyT2A74iHrKcRwWZEZg6KeSWVxy+CLKEqa9oPFGGGdiOIm3rsyb7cWFW2ApLIv3a7OyhEU= Message-ID: From: "Alan Melia" To: References: <003501cf583d$46507100$6401a8c0@JAYDELL> <534D21D5.4050409@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:27:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 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: Hi Michael I would be surprised if that was an effect from the flare. From your plot the path is in darkness so is shielded fron the radiation. Whilst massive X-Class flares can sometimes be detected in the shadow due to diffusion, I doubt the ionisation in a C-Class flare is sufficient to make the difference. I would rate it as a "good" period, maybe constructive "fading". The Dst has crawled back to -30nT, not spectacular, but good enough to support some signals. [...] 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 [65.20.0.139 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Scan-Signature: 046f068074e745d5c60ca47deee9b503 Subject: LF: Re: Re: [Lowfer] LF T/A heads up Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.6 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK 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 Hi Michael I would be surprised if that was an effect from the flare. From your plot the path is in darkness so is shielded fron the radiation. Whilst massive X-Class flares can sometimes be detected in the shadow due to diffusion, I doubt the ionisation in a C-Class flare is sufficient to make the difference. I would rate it as a "good" period, maybe constructive "fading". The Dst has crawled back to -30nT, not spectacular, but good enough to support some signals. Best Wishes Alan G3NYK ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dexter McIntyre W4DEX" To: "Discussion of the Lowfer (US, European, & UK) and MedFer bands" ; Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 1:11 PM Subject: LF: Re: [Lowfer] LF T/A heads up > Michael Sapp wrote: >> Jay & All: One late capture of DK7FC, likely due to a well timed C-class >> solar flare >> >> http://i1296.photobucket.com/albums/ag19/wa3tts/capt00152_zps6c3c06d4.jpg >> >> Jay had fairly consistent signal reception all evening. Not that way >> farther inland..... >> >> at least with my modest setup.... > That's better than my best capture for the night: > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/0d0e6vxyuz0rej8/grabber0008.jpg > > Considering the thunderstorms that rolled through here last night I'm > surprised to see that much. > > Dex >