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 w1CMGf4C012798 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 23:16:43 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1elMJJ-0007fx-1V for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 22:10:53 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1elMJH-0007fo-WE for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 22:10:52 +0000 Received: from omr-a018e.mx.aol.com ([204.29.186.64]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1elMJD-0001Kz-7w for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 22:10:50 +0000 Received: from mtaomg-aaj01.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-aaj01.mx.aol.com [172.27.3.207]) by omr-a018e.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id B2A2738001D9 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:10:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from core-acb06e.mail.aol.com (core-acb06.mail.aol.com [172.27.24.6]) by mtaomg-aaj01.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 7A31C38000087 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:10:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from 188.194.222.230 by webjas-vac226.srv.aolmail.net (10.96.19.229) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:10:44 -0500 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:10:44 -0500 From: Markus Vester To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Message-Id: <1618c11fbac-c90-240e2@webjas-vac226.srv.aolmail.net> In-Reply-To: <1125097296.20180212141115@gmail.com> References: <1125097296.20180212141115@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI X-MB-Message-Type: User X-Mailer: JAS STD X-Originating-IP: [188.194.222.230] x-aol-global-disposition: G DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20150623; t=1518473444; bh=b1YYXLrV/jIoI4eAolZLsTQSQ1qUTYNS+Z76qPjJ08Y=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-Id:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=7kzkXMS3yKuH8uW+l8Cx4mUNYv1DktcQSQ/kTr2JAapxJMzNH2il1avi5yKPepyba ItsM9paRA9LqAY4j1PoOevpLQKOl5psDBzqDuYR9iqkjVISvELG83tarXscZW/mmKY hC66PIEVf3gor8uJbexzYIaXmuqdiw52UViq3QEM= x-aol-sid: 3039ac1b03cf5a8210e45fcc X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) 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 Chris, the broad "noise hump" between 135 and 142 kHz seems to be just the band noise from the antenna, filtered by the IDC bandpass. The bandpass centering seems to be somewhat high, but that's not necessarily a disadvantage and may improve image rejection. In another IDC receiver which was operated outdoors in Tasmania, we have observed a significant temperature dependence from ceramic capacitors. [...] Content analysis details: (1.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (markusvester[at]aol.com) 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid 1.0 FREEMAIL_REPLY From and body contain different freemails X-Scan-Signature: 60b21f5b7eb190e65b65540006a87038 Subject: Re: LF: Do I need an attenuator on LF RX?? Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_190627_832413511.1518473444268" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40,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 ------=_Part_190627_832413511.1518473444268 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Chris, the broad "noise hump" between 135 and 142 kHz seems to be just the band no= ise from the antenna, filtered by the IDC bandpass. The bandpass centering = seems to be somewhat high, but that's not necessarily a disadvantage and ma= y improve image rejection. In another IDC receiver which was operated outdo= ors in Tasmania, we have observed a significant temperature dependence from= ceramic capacitors. At lower frequencies, we can identify an Image and two IM products, but non= e of these appear to be a problem either: 2x138.83 - 147.3 =3D 130.36 kHz DCF39 / DDH47 (twin lines from FSK) 2x130.0 - 128.93 =3D 131.07 kHz DCF49 image with 130 kHz IDC-LO 2x138.83 - 145.0 =3D 132.66 kHz DCF39 / REN (Spain?, with MSK spread) So all in all, your RX seems to be fine as it is. Best 73, Markus (DF6NM)=20 -----Urspr=C3=BCngliche Mitteilung-----=20 Von: Chris Wilson An: rsgb_lf_group Cc: dead.fets Verschickt: Mo, 12. Feb 2018 15:12 Betreff: LF: Do I need an attenuator on LF RX?? Hello LF'ers, I would like to know if the experts here think I need an antenna attenuator on 136kHz? I am using in this capture a little IDC receiver: http://icas.to/lineup/idc-136-kit-eng.htm but see the same with a Softrock LF. I am unsure if the antenna is overloading the RX, it's a big file at around 14 megs, but I guess most people, unlike me in the sticks, have broadband :) Thanks. http://www.gatesgarth.com/Untitled26.mp4 --=20 Best regards, Chris mailto:dead.fets@gmail.com ------=_Part_190627_832413511.1518473444268 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Chris,
the broad "noise hump" between 135 and 142 kHz seems to be just the band n= oise from the antenna, filtered by the IDC bandpass. The bandpass centering= seems to be somewhat high, but that's not necessarily a disadvantage and m= ay improve image rejection. In another IDC receiver which was operated= outdoors in Tasmania, we have observed a significant temperature depe= ndence from ceramic capacitors.

At l= ower frequencies, we can identify an Image and two IM products, but none of= these appear to be a problem either:
2x1= 38.83 - 147.3 =3D 130.36 kHz  DCF39 / DDH47 (twin lines from FSK)
2= x130.0 - 128.93 =3D 131.07 kHz  DCF49 image with 130 kHz IDC-LO
2x1= 38.83 - 145.0 =3D 132.66 kHz  DCF39 / REN (Spain?, with MSK spread)

So all in all, your RX seems to be fin= e as it is.

Best 73,
Markus (DF6NM)


-----Urspr=C3=BCnglich= e Mitteilung-----
Von: Chris Wilson <dead.fets@gmail.co= m>
An: rsgb_lf_group <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>= ;
Cc: dead.fets <dead.fets@gmail.com>
Verschickt: Mo, 12. Feb 2018 15:12
Betreff: LF: Do I need = an attenuator on LF RX??



Hello LF'ers,

I = would like to know if the experts here think I need an antenna
attenuator on 136kHz? I am using in this capture a little IDC
receiver:

http://i= cas.to/lineup/idc-136-kit-eng.htm

bu= t see the same with a Softrock LF. I am unsure if the antenna is
overloading the RX, it's a big file at around 14 megs, but I guess<= br abp=3D"2710"> most people, unlike me in the sticks, have broadband :)

Thanks.
=
http://www.gatesgarth.com/Untitled26.mp4
--
Best regards,
Chris mailto:dead.fets@gmail.com


------=_Part_190627_832413511.1518473444268--