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 w19Nr05q000904 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 00:53:03 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1ekIPQ-0003Rt-PE for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 09 Feb 2018 23:48:48 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1ekIPQ-0003Rk-6U for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 09 Feb 2018 23:48:48 +0000 Received: from simone.ucs.mun.ca ([134.153.232.76]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ekIPN-0001zE-3D for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 09 Feb 2018 23:48:46 +0000 Received: from plato.ucs.mun.ca (plato.ucs.mun.ca [134.153.232.153]) by simone.ucs.mun.ca (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id w19Nmc5Y024850 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 20:18:40 -0330 Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 20:18:38 -0330 (NST) From: jcraig@mun.ca X-X-Sender: jcraig@plato.ucs.mun.ca To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org In-Reply-To: <5A7D9EB0.2603.FC9243@roelof.ndb.demon.nl> Message-ID: References: , <5A7C98D5.14792.22B5316@roelof.ndb.demon.nl>, <5A7D9EB0.2603.FC9243@roelof.ndb.demon.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 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 Roelof, Thats very interesting. I see the 2 navtex towers at the Coast Guard site frequently. The base insulator for my tower came from a tower that was used for CW and later navtex before it was decommissioned. [...] Content analysis details: (-0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: b77892ad90d0261eaf071f4f6cf31464 Subject: Re: LF: excellent transatlantic propagagtion Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME 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 Roelof, Thats very interesting. I see the 2 navtex towers at the Coast Guard site frequently. The base insulator for my tower came from a tower that was used for CW and later navtex before it was decommissioned. CW again tonight on 477.7 kHz. 73 Joe VO1NA On Fri, 9 Feb 2018, Roelof Bakker wrote: > Hello Joe, > > Contrary to the Subject, propagation was worse last night. > Yes, the beauty of LF propagation is that not a single night is the > same as the previous one. It should be rather boring if it was. > > Fading is another interesting matter. Due to the shared channel and > time slot policy of the NAVTEX service on 490 and 518 kHz, it is > difficult to receive Robin Hood Bay (St John's) from Newfoundland on > 518 kHz. It has a shared 10 minute timeslot with Portpatrick in > Scotland and NAVTEX Malta. Portpatrick is 700 km away and most times > uses the full ten minutes. Yet, on many occasions Robin Hood Bay has > been received here faultless as Portpatrick is at times completely > gone due to heavy fading. > > 73, > Roelof, pa0rdt >