Thanks for the comments on my suggestion. I think there is a slight
misunderstanding, due to Dick's fine work on absolute field strength
measurement. I was not suggesting that we could get any measurement of DCF39
field strength by this means. I was suggesting that we could set up a
comparison of receiver sensitivities, using DCF39 as a reasonably constant
source (for details of how constant see Dick's latest posting), that is
available to everyone in Europe whatever their receiver set-up is. What I
was aiming at was avoiding people like Alain listening on 136 hearing
nothing and assuming there is no activity, when in fact it is their
receiver/aerial capability which is their problem. I don't expect it to be
quite as much use to the experienced operators who have their regular
contacts to provide their data. Also the interest initially is not in 3-4dB
changes more probably 20-30dB (I suspect that is my deficit at the moment)
I take Wolf's point that the aerial could be improved, as his was, and the
DCF39 signal reduced. I wonder whether this might be less of a problem at
greater distances from the transmitter. Wolf is so close he can probably
hear the operator breathing Hi.
I look forward to seeing the 'professional' measurements posted to a web
site soon?
(please!)
73 de Alan G3NYK
[email protected]
|
