Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by klubnl.pl (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8+deb8u2) with ESMTP id v9RIswsJ031439 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 20:55:00 +0200 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1e89hF-0000S2-Vb for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 19:49:33 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1e89hE-0000Rr-Vb for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 19:49:32 +0100 Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1e89hB-0007fc-Pf for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 19:49:31 +0100 Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C756820CC1 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 20:49:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 3yNtFx2SPDz10Hk for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 20:49:25 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <59F37FB4.1080505@posteo.de> Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 20:49:24 +0200 From: DK7FC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <15f5559fe36-c0b-25e91@webjas-vac031.srv.aolmail.net> <59F1F06C.6070805@posteo.de> <4c256fa8-678f-9017-19c6-b196247de591@abelian.org> <59F31E5A.5020602@posteo.de> <59F33967.9030805@posteo.de> <59F35DE1.9060503@posteo.de> In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hi Paul, oops, that is strange. Maybe the PA is a bit nonlinear (slightly clipping) and the measurement is mixed up. I will try to solve that. Well the difference between 5090 and 5170 seems not to be very much. Would it makes sense to repeat the experiment? Tomorrow i could run it for a longer time, e.g. 6 hours. Then there should be usable values on each antenna and frequency. [...] Content analysis details: (-0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: 046f068074e745d5c60ca47deee9b503 Subject: Re: VLF: 3 carriers near 5170 Hz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed 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=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none 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 Paul, oops, that is strange. Maybe the PA is a bit nonlinear (slightly clipping) and the measurement is mixed up. I will try to solve that. Well the difference between 5090 and 5170 seems not to be very much. Would it makes sense to repeat the experiment? Tomorrow i could run it for a longer time, e.g. 6 hours. Then there should be usable values on each antenna and frequency. 73, Stefan Am 27.10.2017 20:03, schrieb Paul Nicholson: > > Stefan wrote: > > > Since 13:20 UTC im running 120 mA on 3 individual frequencies: > > 5090.005 Hz | 5130.005 Hz | 5170.005 Hz > > > Carriers stopped at 16:20 UTC.... > > Received in 92.6uHz > > H-field (new) E-field > 5090.005: 9.3 dB 10.38 dB > > 5130.005: N/A See below > > 5170.005: N/A 10.2 dB > > N/A where the signal is too weak to measure. > > Something wrong with 5130.005, here's the E-field spectrum > > http://abelian.org/vlf/tmp/171027a.gif > > -- > Paul Nicholson > -- >