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 w0NCQ4mv028903 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 13:26:07 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1edxXu-0003HU-70 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:19:22 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1edxXt-0003HL-4D for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:19:21 +0000 Received: from rgout05.bt.lon5.cpcloud.co.uk ([65.20.0.182]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1edxXp-0000Se-QR for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:19:19 +0000 X-OWM-Source-IP: 86.182.211.240 (GB) X-OWM-Env-Sender: gw3ucj@btinternet.com X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50,refid=2.7.2:2018.1.23.115418:17:7.944,ip=,rules=__BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __TO_NO_NAME, __REFERENCES, __HAS_FROM, __FRAUD_WEBMAIL_FROM, __HAS_MSGID, __SANE_MSGID, __USER_AGENT, __MOZILLA_USER_AGENT, __MIME_VERSION, __IN_REP_TO, __CT, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN, __CTE, __ANY_URI, __URI_WITH_PATH, __URI_NO_MAILTO, __URI_NO_WWW, __CP_URI_IN_BODY, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE, __URI_IN_BODY, __URI_NOT_IMG, __FORWARDED_MSG, __NO_HTML_TAG_RAW, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, BODY_SIZE_2000_2999, __MIME_TEXT_P1, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY, __URI_NS, HTML_00_01, HTML_00_10, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS, __FRAUD_WEBMAIL, IN_REP_TO, MSG_THREAD, LEGITIMATE_SIGNS, __SINGLE_URI_TEXT, SINGLE_URI_IN_BODY, __PHISH_SPEAR_STRUCTURE_1, __MIME_TEXT_P, REFERENCES, NO_URI_HTTPS, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS, URI_WITH_PATH_ONLY Received: from [192.168.1.189] (86.182.211.240) by rgout05.bt.lon5.cpcloud.co.uk (9.0.019.21-1) (authenticated as gw3ucj@btinternet.com) id 5A5E1B75009BECB3 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:19:10 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btinternet.com; s=btcpcloud; t=1516709957; bh=Sy3ex320V9HhtlYljMrJNsyMINWg817Z9iO+hBrys+E=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To; b=ZfGsPWwo80C0NSqjLY4lo2QdjGCaoqk4wtas4DX2cpYD8hAGJNTaKq1Cf1zaSks8AiZXj1bvPH2BfZot2jtRstLjsTXBcQB0hDV0sn/fHrZ5dObWOSoQoVOuE/4TeeW6R6y43zKhmzLjd54arcdxNAyKcM7TJdl71nF8HRfaqKE= To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <5A67114F.1411.198B597C@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com> From: Martin Evans Message-ID: <25e230a7-e6fa-f30f-7c3c-ab7b9e9dd622@btinternet.com> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:18:48 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5A67114F.1411.198B597C@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com> Content-Language: en-US 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: Thanks Mike. Yes of course - silly me - I do remember to upload spots on occasion but it had never occurred to me to compare reports. The obvious solutions are often the best (especially if like me you don't understand the complicated ones!) [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Scan-Signature: 9ca91679b330d65f05d707c2d2b164fe Subject: Re: LF: 136kHz - this is how badmy system is! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 Thanks Mike. Yes of course  - silly me - I do remember to upload spots on occasion but it had never occurred to me to compare reports. The obvious solutions are often the best (especially if like me you don't understand the complicated ones!) It's pleasing to see that you think that I'm receiving reasonably well - gives me encouragement to improve it. I am especially pleased considering that I don't receive well to the North or East  - the not inconsiderable bulk of the Brecon Beacons sits just behind me. Thanks again. Martin GW3UCJ. ************************************* > There is no need to wonder how good your (or anyone's) receive syatem > is. By using the databases for Opera and/or WSPR > (http://wsprnet.org/drupal/wsprnet/spots) > simply compare the reports you are giving a particular station with > the reports from others who are a similar distance away from that > station. You can also average the comparitive reports on Opera and > WSPR to get an idea of how accurate your frequency setting is. > > In your case, Martin, you appear to be receiving DCF39 well, but I > expect it would work even better with a tuned antenna. My own system > shows over 60dB between DCF39 and noise in an SSB bandwidth during > the daytime, but of course I have less land between me (in > Hertfordshire) and Germany. I have just looked at the database and > cannot see your reports so I presume you are not uploading any. > > Mike, G3XDV > ========== > >> Watching Roger's adventures on 136kHz, I thought I'd go  take a look >> and I wondered - >> >> DCF39 is about 50dB above the noise at 16:44UTC. >> >> I'm using a 150ft inverted L, untuned, stuffed directly into an Elad >> FDM-S2 SDR. >> >> Decoded G3XIZ, G4FTC, G8HUH & G4GIR between 16:12 and 16:44. >> >> What does this say about my setup? >> >> Is it deaf/average/ok? >> >> How far above the noise is DCF39 in an optimised "good" setup? >> >> Anyone tell me? >> >> Martin GW3UCJ Swansea. >> > >