Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*VLF\:\s+Carrier\s+on\s+4470\.005\s+Hz\!\s+\-\s+fieldstrength\s+comparison\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*VLF\:\s+Carrier\s+on\s+4470\.005\s+Hz\!\s+\-\s+fieldstrength\s+comparison\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. Re: VLF: Carrier on 4470.005 Hz! - fieldstrength comparison (score: 1): Author: Markus Vester <[email protected]>; Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 15:34:02 -0400; This test is going surprisingly well. producing beautiful twin peaks on 4470.005 and 4470.0025 on the DL0AO grabber. It looks like my signal is about 10 dB stronger there. Our antenna currents are si; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2017-08/msg00100.html (16,491 bytes)
2. RE: VLF: Carrier on 4470.005 Hz! - fieldstrength comparison (score: 1): Author: <[email protected]>; Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 23:17:24 -0400; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2017-08/msg00105.html (18,579 bytes)
3. Re: VLF: Carrier on 4470.005 Hz! - fieldstrength comparison (score: 1): Author: Markus Vester <[email protected]>; Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 08:53:50 -0400; Comparing the peaks again in 31 uHz after 9 hours of carrier accumulation, it looks like the level difference was only 7 to 8 dB, implying that the stated 2 dB propagation loss over 1/r is probably n; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2017-08/msg00110.html (16,547 bytes)
4. RE: VLF: Carrier on 4470.005 Hz! - fieldstrength comparison (score: 1): Author: <[email protected]>; Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 10:21:21 -0400; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2017-08/msg00112.html (18,786 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]