LF: Re: RE: 600 V 160

To:	<[email protected]>
Subject:	LF: Re: RE: 600 V 160
From:	"hamilton mal" <[email protected]>
Date:	Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:44:14 -0000
Authentication-results:	mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 193.82.116.20 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of [email protected]) smtp.mail=[email protected]
Delivered-to:	[email protected]
References:	<000201c7e013$1a798340$0b01a8c0@acer5gi5q0ubzj>
Reply-to:	[email protected]
Sender:	[email protected]

John, Yes same erp.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John W Gould" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 2:38 PM
Subject: LF: RE: 600 V 160


> Mal et al,  it will be an interesting comparison, but it will be the ERP
> (estimated or otherwise) that will be important, as well as some absolute
> measurement of the noise floor on each band.  
> 
> Incidentally, has anyone done some noise floor measurements on 136kHz now
> that the Rugby LORAN has gone?
> 
> 73 John, G3WKL
> 
> 
> 
>

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
LF: 600 V 160, hamilton mal LF: RE: 600 V 160, John W Gould Re: LF: RE: 600 V 160, Dave Sergeant LF: Re: RE: 600 V 160, hamilton mal <= LF: Re: 600 V 160, Graham LF: Re: Re: 600 V 160, hamilton mal

Previous by Date:	LF: Re: Re: 600 V 160, hamilton mal
Next by Date:	LF: Re: 137.700, dl2hre
Previous by Thread:	Re: LF: RE: 600 V 160, Dave Sergeant
Next by Thread:	LF: Re: 600 V 160, Graham
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]