Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.208.67 with SMTP id mc3csp118898igc; Mon, 12 May 2014 19:11:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.194.157.68 with SMTP id wk4mr4974953wjb.42.1399947108523; Mon, 12 May 2014 19:11:48 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id mu10si3245132wib.49.2014.05.12.19.11.48 for ; Mon, 12 May 2014 19:11:48 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: none (google.com: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=195.171.43.25; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) smtp.mail=owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Wk1j5-0006h6-6j for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 13 May 2014 02:41:51 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Wk1j4-0006gx-QJ for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 13 May 2014 02:41:50 +0100 Received: from blu0-omc1-s27.blu0.hotmail.com ([65.55.116.38]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1Wk1j2-0001Je-4n for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 13 May 2014 02:41:49 +0100 Received: from BLU405-EAS41 ([65.55.116.8]) by blu0-omc1-s27.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 12 May 2014 18:41:44 -0700 X-TMN: [WIvSBfAaHerY7Xv31TJPcmtWwZ8eO2lr] X-Originating-Email: [hellozerohellozero@hotmail.com] Message-ID: From: Laurence KL7 L MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 17:41:44 -0800 References: <53714E41.1090701@virginbroadband.com.au> To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" In-Reply-To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 May 2014 01:41:44.0883 (UTC) FILETIME=[7F44F830:01CF6E4C] 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: Typically.... HGA22 was 5dB (or more fare dependent) stronger in china, singapore and Fiji but here in KL7 DCF39 just wins... > On May 12, 2014, at 3:43 PM, "Alan Melia" wrote: > > Hi Edgar some but not all may be due to the ERP .......HGA22 runs twice the ERP of DCF39 from memory of when I was logging them here. > > Alan > G3NYK > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "edgar" > To: > Cc: > Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 11:42 PM > Subject: LF: HGA22 vrs DCF39 > > >> Hi, >> >> It is interesting to compare the difference between the HGA22 and DCF39 signals at a distance greater than 16000 km. >> >> The difference in signal level at 21:00 UTC on the 12-5-2014 is ~ 13 dB. >> >> The difference in path length is ~ 562 km or about 3%. >> >> Refer to >> >> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/101251787/testIDC.html >> >> Regards, Edgar >> Moonah, Tasmania. > > [...] 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 [65.55.116.38 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (hellozerohellozero[at]hotmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.7 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: 6ffbd2c9950b634d6cc91f9565b01a8b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: LF: Re: HGA22 vrs DCF39 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD, 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 Typically.... HGA22 was 5dB (or more fare dependent) stronger in china, sin= gapore and Fiji but here in KL7 DCF39 just wins... > On May 12, 2014, at 3:43 PM, "Alan Melia" wrot= e: >=20 > Hi Edgar some but not all may be due to the ERP .......HGA22 runs twice th= e ERP of DCF39 from memory of when I was logging them here. >=20 > Alan > G3NYK >=20 > ----- Original Message ----- From: "edgar" > To: > Cc: <600m@yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 11:42 PM > Subject: LF: HGA22 vrs DCF39 >=20 >=20 >> Hi, >>=20 >> It is interesting to compare the difference between the HGA22 and DCF39 s= ignals at a distance greater than 16000 km. >>=20 >> The difference in signal level at 21:00 UTC on the 12-5-2014 is ~ 13 dB. >>=20 >> The difference in path length is ~ 562 km or about 3%. >>=20 >> Refer to >>=20 >> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/101251787/testIDC.html >>=20 >> Regards, Edgar >> Moonah, Tasmania. >=20 >=20