Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.67.23.138 with SMTP id ia10csp4027pad; Sat, 28 Sep 2013 06:57:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.182.68 with SMTP id ec4mr6704949wic.40.1380376633886; Sat, 28 Sep 2013 06:57:13 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id vt5si4825413wjc.113.1969.12.31.16.00.00; Sat, 28 Sep 2013 06:57:13 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) client-ip=195.171.43.25; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) smtp.mail=owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@comcast.net Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1VPuck-0008N5-9h for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 28 Sep 2013 14:31:54 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1VPucj-0008Mu-IR for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 28 Sep 2013 14:31:53 +0100 Received: from qmta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.48]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1VPuch-0005YN-83 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 28 Sep 2013 14:31:52 +0100 Received: from omta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.59]) by qmta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Wd8n1m0041GhbT855dXpSf; Sat, 28 Sep 2013 13:31:49 +0000 Received: from JAYDELL ([71.234.119.9]) by omta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id WdXo1m0110CFS1j3TdXojj; Sat, 28 Sep 2013 13:31:49 +0000 Message-ID: <001d01cebc4f$15938230$6401a8c0@JAYDELL> From: To: References: <001801cebbe6$edceac60$6401a8c0@JAYDELL> <5246CB68.40004@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 09:31:48 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1380375109; bh=UzSF9AISia/TpOwrRxraSdpdTsUNQdXnvjNazSZiDBM=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:From:To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=ZugbAbHYl53bfRktHpp7nQHbPPVSprMzzvRGH1Cf5QC5DJVQnK0z7DYHSMDhPCM99 hHGds6fiLV2Zr3aR+eqiraM/7Lkaq+nXlTmEpvYCVON21r42ONyyKxs0ia+E6YDbZh QqM6ixiKW1KSyKAUQK8JmUPl1KhtxyNPvvaSaGyDFZ8a6b9EKftdXCWtqsFQs2YmMe xyHEaja2tILR/3UTT5lIEAN1NwifTEeuh8aqPkdRlBTUfv1lhP8me2RjHh0/8MUKl5 MDKDQSw0FxwrzGzmHBMKuj4SHx6T1Uxi/PBPHVdNRdBxNlbk69f0ofJmPGpmY4b4ci Cpg03TsI1dkXw== X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Stefan Thanks for the info and other spots -40 or lower. No QRM here to speak of ... just normal levels of static. Was pretty impressive to get a decode with next to nothing showing in the waterfall. Don't think I've gotten a decode in the past with that little showing. Have made some RX antenna changes so hoping they translate to better weak signal performance. [...] Content analysis details: (-2.4 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [76.96.62.48 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (jrusgrove[at]comcast.net) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -2.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Scan-Signature: 14e68a9cb6dee915a96310ea9bf261c5 Subject: Re: LF: DK7FC WSPR15 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0019_01CEBC2D.8E11BB40" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.9 required=5.0 tests=HTML_40_50,HTML_MESSAGE, HTML_TAG_EXISTS_TBODY,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 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 2275 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01CEBC2D.8E11BB40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Stefan Thanks for the info and other spots -40 or lower. No QRM here to speak of ... just normal levels of static. Was pretty impressive to get a decode with next to nothing showing in the waterfall. Don't think I've gotten a decode in the past with that little showing. Have made some RX antenna changes so hoping they translate to better weak signal performance. Jay ----- Original Message ----- From: Stefan Schäfer To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 8:28 AM Subject: Re: LF: DK7FC WSPR15 Hi Jay, LF, Am 28.09.2013 03:06, schrieb jrusgrove@comcast.net: Stefan Memory fuzzy here ... not sure if I've seen a -40 snr on your signal in the past. Do you recall? 2013-09-28 00:30 DK7FC 0.137610 -40 0 JN49ik 1 W1VD FN31ls 6099 295 Jay W1VD WD2XNS WE2XGR/2 WG2XSR/2 Yes i do. When you search the database for my call, last 2 weeks and sorted by SNR you will see that -40 is rare. But even -41 is possible! See: Timestamp Call MHz SNR Drift Grid Pwr Reporter RGrid km az 2013-09-25 00:00 DK7FC 0.137610 -41 0 JN49ik 1 RW3ADB KO85ro 2045 59 2013-09-26 21:00 DK7FC 0.137610 -41 0 JN49ik 1 RW3ADB KO85ro 2045 59 2013-09-23 17:00 DK7FC 0.137610 -40 0 JN49ik 1 SV8RV KM07ks 1621 139 2013-09-25 22:00 DK7FC 0.137610 -40 0 JN49ik 1 4X1RF KM72ls 2850 121 2013-09-21 18:00 DK7FC 0.137610 -40 0 JN49ik 1 R3LW KO54mq 1626 60 2013-09-18 19:00 DK7FC 0.137610 -40 0 JN49ik 1 RW3ADB KO85ro 2045 59 2013-09-23 06:30 DK7FC 0.137610 -40 0 JN49ik 1 UW8SM KN28iv 1163 87 2013-09-28 00:30 DK7FC 0.137610 -40 0 JN49ik 1 W1VD FN31ls 6099 295 RW3ADB usually has rather poor RX results (often 10 dB lower SNR than other RX stns close to him). That supports my thought that the decode level appears even lower if there is QRM in the passband. One could make a test: Use a white noise generator with a high level and a notch at 136.610 Hz (my TX QRG), maybe 10 Hz notch BW. My signal must be close to the decode limit. The rest of the 200 Hz wide passband of WSPR should be covered with noise, maybe 20 dB above my signal. Theorectically there should be a decode but the SNR must be terrible, maybe you can get -42 dB SNR. That would be a new record, hi :-) 73, Stefan/DK7FC ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01CEBC2D.8E11BB40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Stefan
 
Thanks for the info and other spots -40 = or lower.=20 No QRM here to speak of ... just normal levels of static. Was = pretty=20 impressive to get a decode with next to nothing showing in the=20 waterfall. Don't think I've gotten a decode in the past with that = little=20 showing. Have made some RX antenna changes so hoping they translate = to=20 better weak signal performance.
 
Jay 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Stefan = Sch=E4fer
Sent: Saturday, September 28, = 2013 8:28=20 AM
Subject: Re: LF: DK7FC = WSPR15

Hi Jay, LF,

Am 28.09.2013 03:06, schrieb jrusgrove@comcast.net:=20
Stefan

Memory fuzzy here ... not sure if I've = seen a -40=20 snr on your signal in the past. Do you recall?

2013-09-28=20 00:30  DK7FC  0.137610  -40  0  = JN49ik =20 1  W1VD  FN31ls  6099  295
Jay W1VD =20 WD2XNS  WE2XGR/2 WG2XSR/2

Yes i do. When = you search=20 the database for my call, last 2 weeks and sorted by SNR you will see = that -40=20 is rare. But even -41 is possible! See:

Timestamp Call MHz SNR Drift Grid Pwr Reporter RGrid km az
 2013-09-25 00:00   DK7FC   0.137610   -41   0   JN49ik   1   RW3ADB   KO85ro   2045   59 
 2013-09-26 21:00   DK7FC   0.137610   -41   0   JN49ik   1   RW3ADB   KO85ro   2045   59 
 2013-09-23 17:00   DK7FC   0.137610   -40   0   JN49ik   1   SV8RV   KM07ks   1621   139 
 2013-09-25 22:00   DK7FC   0.137610   -40   0   JN49ik   1   4X1RF   KM72ls   2850   121 
 2013-09-21 18:00   DK7FC   0.137610   -40   0   JN49ik   1   R3LW   KO54mq   1626   60 
 2013-09-18 19:00   DK7FC   0.137610   -40   0   JN49ik   1   RW3ADB   KO85ro   2045   59 
 2013-09-23 06:30   DK7FC   0.137610   -40   0   JN49ik   1   UW8SM   KN28iv   1163   87 
 2013-09-28 00:30   DK7FC   0.137610   -40   0   JN49ik   1   W1VD   FN31ls   6099   295 

RW3ADB = usually=20 has rather poor RX results (often 10 dB lower SNR than other RX stns = close to=20 him). That supports my thought that the decode level appears even = lower if=20 there is QRM in the passband.

One could make a test: Use a = white noise=20 generator with a high level and a notch at 136.610 Hz (my TX QRG), = maybe 10 Hz=20 notch BW. My signal must be close to the decode limit. The rest of the = 200 Hz=20 wide passband of WSPR should be covered with noise, maybe 20 dB above = my=20 signal. Theorectically there should be a decode but the SNR must be = terrible,=20 maybe you can get -42 dB SNR. That would be a new record, hi = :-)

73,=20 Stefan/DK7FC
------=_NextPart_000_0019_01CEBC2D.8E11BB40--