Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.142.105 with SMTP id rv9csp93346igb; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 16:12:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.76.20 with SMTP id g20mr7688725wiw.7.1403824326020; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 16:12:06 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id l14si35411355wiw.91.2014.06.26.16.12.05 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 16:12:05 -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; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@btinternet.com Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1X0Hcs-0002v2-4v for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 22:54:38 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1X0Hcr-0002ut-Oq for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 22:54:37 +0100 Received: from smtpout04.bt.lon5.cpcloud.co.uk ([65.20.0.124]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1X0Hcp-0006Ji-CF for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 22:54:36 +0100 X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A090206.53AC969A.0003,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=2.7.2:2014.6.26.175119:17:12.731,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, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END, __MIME_VERSION, __CT, __CTYPE_MULTIPART_ALT, __CTYPE_HAS_BOUNDARY, __CTYPE_MULTIPART, __HAS_X_PRIORITY, __HAS_MSMAIL_PRI, __HAS_X_MAILER, USER_AGENT_OE, __OUTLOOK_MUA_1, __USER_AGENT_MS_GENERIC, __ANY_URI, __FRAUD_BODY_WEBMAIL, __URI_NO_WWW, __URI_NO_PATH, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE, SUPERLONG_LINE, __HAS_HTML, HTML_NO_HTTP, BODY_SIZE_10000_PLUS, BODYTEXTH_SIZE_10000_LESS, __MIME_HTML, __TAG_EXISTS_HTML, __URI_NS, __PHISH_FROM, __OUTLOOK_MUA, __FRAUD_WEBMAIL, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown Received: from gnat (86.174.44.235) by smtpout04.bt.lon5.cpcloud.co.uk (8.6.100.99.10223) (authenticated as alan.melia@btinternet.com) id 539F96590064545B for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 22:54:33 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btinternet.com; s=btcpcloud; t=1403819675; bh=aupWtvD7f6aOsB5ydGIdCTr8C3em6GUgnkcEeQ+ygo4=; h=Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer; b=rw3VKWsFmPrg46X6d0tAY12hYhCKm9RYct/x/V0dj3V5m4JaNOj8Qi+M7h43Ak10CImBkBe5yT2PtT0Hagb/DVxg0YFo+qvpZjnzBneKTbPEKiSnBqyqjRQYDWbBBxrKegrtFmDDaaJGJVlvkMwsOoCdOUCVnhhTLJypSFMfsAE= Message-ID: <9255559BDE4F422CBC9C811A9F5BB666@gnat> From: "Alan Melia" To: References: , <3E2191D6995647D48932529876C7636C@gnat> <53AC1579.29762.C84E42@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com> <493B56F7D40241A1BF5DF876FB4CAD25@gnat> <035022EAC0734F35A16A16BB5DF0AE47@White> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 22:47:32 +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 Markus I did not spend a lot of time on day-time analysis but over one year (DCF39 to Porto) I did see anout 5dB better noon signal in summer than winter. I also found some connection with electron precipitation. Daytime sigs can be much enhanced after a major geomag storm, but I did think there was evidence on Lakihegi of an effect at lower storm levels. I did not continue these tests after a power outage stopped the logging.....about 6 weeks data around September. The differences were around the same level as the normal "wriggling" of the graph line. The day after the storm yielded slightly better levels, but this could have been "phasing effects" [...] 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 [65.20.0.124 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Scan-Signature: b64e297c4577ad617411a4f8f6174ca7 Subject: Re: LF: Re: RE: Summer Solstice Test report Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_010B_01CF9190.9D89B6C0" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.1 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK,HTML_20_30, 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. ------=_NextPart_000_010B_01CF9190.9D89B6C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Markus I did not spend a lot of time on day-time analysis but over = one year (DCF39 to Porto) I did see anout 5dB better noon signal in = summer than winter. I also found some connection with electron = precipitation. Daytime sigs can be much enhanced after a major geomag = storm, but I did think there was evidence on Lakihegi of an effect at = lower storm levels. I did not continue these tests after a power outage = stopped the logging.....about 6 weeks data around September. The = differences were around the same level as the normal "wriggling" of the = graph line. The day after the storm yielded slightly better levels, but = this could have been "phasing effects" Alan ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Markus Vester=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 10:27 PM Subject: Re: LF: Re: RE: Summer Solstice Test report Yes Alan, I also think the "dome", due to strongest D-layer ionisation = around local noon, is the essence of good daytime skywave LF and VLF = propagation.=20 Loran-C observations seem to show that though the maximum is much = shorter during the winter season, it is not necessarily weaker. I wonder = whether increased sunlight intensity during January earth perihel might = somewhat counteract lower solar elevation... If so, Southern latitudes = should experience significantly stronger daytime propagation during = their summer than we do in ours. =20 73, Markus (DF6NM) From: Alan Melia=20 Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 3:08 PM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Subject: LF: Re: RE: Summer Solstice Test report Hi Mike well at 137 the daytime signal is skywave over about 700km I=20 watched Budapest (about 1200km) and there is a distinct "dome" in the=20 response at local noon at mid path. This is higher in summer as the = sun is=20 higher and so stronger. I think on 472 the ground-wave is shorter=20 particularly at our power and aerial situations, and I suspect the = skywave=20 though there may not be as predominant as at 137. .....more day-time=20 absorption. I am sure the local environment, trees building etc has an = effect too. Alan ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Mike Dennison" To: ; Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 12:43 PM Subject: LF: RE: Summer Solstice Test report > On 25 Jun 2014 at 21:55, Alan Melia wrote: >> >> It is interesting that there does seem to be a suggestion that 137 >> holds up better in summer than 472.......have I read that = correctly, >> or maybe it was from another poster. I was not able to do the same >> sort of tests for 472. > > > I haven't done any scientific tests, but from a lot of monitoring it > seems that for daytime ranges around 500-1000km 136kHz works better > than 472kHz. I presume this because the 136kHz daytime propagation > over this distance is primarily by ground wave, whereas on 472kHz = the > ground wave range is less so sky-wave is needed and this is not > available until dusk. > > It is difficult to compare the two bands over longer distances > because 472kHz is not available in Russia (unlike 136kHz), and > activity seems low in many other countries. > > Personally, I have been disappointed by the amount of DX received > during darkness hours on 472kHz so far. It seems commonplace > to receive stations out to Scandinavia and Italy, but little beyond. > Yes, I have seen some transatlantic DX but nothing to match > the stories of worldwide openings reported by retired marine 500kHz > operators, or indeed what is availalable routinely on 160m. Is this > just lack of activity? > > de Mike, G3XDV > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >=20 ------=_NextPart_000_010B_01CF9190.9D89B6C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Markus I did not spend a lot of time = on day-time=20 analysis but over one year (DCF39 to Porto) I did see anout 5dB = better noon=20 signal in summer than winter. I also found some connection with electron = precipitation. Daytime sigs can be much enhanced after a major geomag = storm, but=20 I did think there was evidence on Lakihegi of an effect at lower storm = levels. I=20 did not continue these tests after a power outage stopped the = logging.....about=20 6 weeks data around September. The differences were around the same = level as the=20 normal "wriggling" of the graph line. The day after the storm yielded = slightly=20 better levels, but this could have been "phasing effects"
 
Alan
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Markus=20 Vester
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 = 10:27=20 PM
Subject: Re: LF: Re: RE: Summer = Solstice=20 Test report

Yes Alan, I also think = the "dome", due to=20 strongest D-layer ionisation around local noon, is the essence=20 of good daytime skywave LF and VLF propagation.
 
Loran-C observations seem to show = that though the=20 maximum is much shorter during the winter season, it is not = necessarily=20 weaker. I wonder whether increased sunlight intensity during = January=20 earth perihel might somewhat counteract lower solar elevation... = If so,=20 Southern latitudes should experience significantly stronger = daytime=20 propagation during their summer than we do in ours.   =20
 
73, Markus=20 (DF6NM)

From: Alan Melia
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 3:08 PM
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= =20
Subject: LF: Re: RE: Summer Solstice Test = report

Hi Mike well at  137 the daytime = signal is=20 skywave over about 700km I
watched Budapest (about 1200km) and = there is a=20 distinct "dome" in the
response at local noon at mid path. This is = higher=20 in summer as the sun is
higher and so stronger. I think on 472 the = ground-wave is shorter
particularly at our power and aerial = situations,=20 and I suspect the skywave
though there may not be as predominant = as at=20 137. .....more day-time
absorption. I am sure the local = environment, trees=20 building etc has an
effect too.

Alan

----- Original = Message=20 -----
From: "Mike Dennison" <mike.dennison@ntlworld.com= >
To:=20 <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= >;=20 <rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups= .co.uk>
Sent:=20 Thursday, June 26, 2014 12:43 PM
Subject: LF: RE: Summer Solstice = Test=20 report


> On 25 Jun 2014 at 21:55, Alan Melia=20 wrote:
>>
>> It is interesting that there does seem = to be a=20 suggestion that 137
>> holds up better in summer than = 472.......have=20 I read that correctly,
>> or maybe it was from another = poster. I was=20 not able to do the same
>> sort of tests for=20 472.
>
>
> I haven't done any scientific tests, but = from a=20 lot of monitoring it
> seems that for daytime ranges around = 500-1000km=20 136kHz works better
> than 472kHz. I presume this because the = 136kHz=20 daytime propagation
> over this distance is primarily by ground = wave,=20 whereas on 472kHz the
> ground wave range is less so sky-wave is = needed=20 and this is not
> available until dusk.
>
> It is = difficult=20 to compare the two bands over longer distances
> because 472kHz = is not=20 available in Russia (unlike 136kHz), and
> activity seems low in = many=20 other countries.
>
> Personally, I have been disappointed = by the=20 amount of DX received
> during darkness hours on 472kHz so far. = It seems=20 commonplace
> to receive stations out to Scandinavia and Italy, = but=20 little beyond.
> Yes, I have seen some transatlantic DX but = nothing to=20 match
> the stories of worldwide openings reported by retired = marine=20 500kHz
> operators, or indeed what is availalable routinely on = 160m. Is=20 this
> just lack of activity?
>
> de Mike, = G3XDV
>=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> =


------=_NextPart_000_010B_01CF9190.9D89B6C0--