Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mp01.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 35712380000D7; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:18:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1QwG8s-0006HS-OD for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:17:26 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1QwG8s-0006HJ-92 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:17:26 +0100 Received: from out1.ip08ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.244]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1QwG8q-00039R-54 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:17:26 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AigBAKMjVU5cHnUG/2dsb2JhbABClBYDhAVEjxR4gTsFAQEFCAEBA0kCExkBAQMFAgEDEQMBAQEKJRQBBBoGFggGEwoBAgIBAYdiArsghkkEglGaP4cF X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,275,1312153200"; d="scan'208,217";a="499913859" Received: from host-92-30-117-6.as13285.net (HELO xphd97xgq27nyf) ([92.30.117.6]) by out1.ip08ir2.opaltelecom.net with SMTP; 24 Aug 2011 17:17:17 +0100 Message-ID: <003401cc6279$4a606d20$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> From: "mal hamilton" To: References: <001b01cc6276$7aa1d170$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <98090600-1314202243-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-349814214-@b1.c4.bise7.blackberry> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:17:16 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 Subject: Re: LF: Re: WSPR or QRSS: which is better? Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0031_01CC6281.ABEE0DB0" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_40_50,HTML_MESSAGE 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 x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:459031008:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1dc1454e5524432e18 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0031_01CC6281.ABEE0DB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jim It looks more like a message from a GOOSEBERRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! g3kev ----- Original Message -----=20 From: james.cowburn@virgin.net=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 5:10 PM Subject: Re: LF: Re: WSPR or QRSS: which is better? Dinosaur! ;-) ned ludd of radio! Just teasing Mal!=20 Sent from my BlackBerry=AE wireless device -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- From: "mal hamilton" =20 Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 16:57:08 +0100 To: ReplyTo: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Subject: LF: Re: WSPR or QRSS: which is better? Roger QRS is always better than wspr. Only one level of demodulation needed, = just read the dots/dashes as displayed on screen, whereas wspr and other = similar data modes need further demodulation, for example vy weak wspr = traces that do not demodulate could easily be read had it been on/off = keyed QRS mode. QRS is also a good real time QSO mode, next best thing to normal CW de mal/g3kev ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Roger Lapthorn=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 4:42 PM Subject: LF: WSPR or QRSS: which is better? A question for the coding experts here: WSPR is an excellent weak = signal beaconing mode, but at what QRSS speed is QRSS "better" ? 73s Roger G3XBM --=20 http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/ http://www.g3xbm.co.uk http://www.youtube.com/user/g3xbm https://sites.google.com/site/sub9khz/ ------=_NextPart_000_0031_01CC6281.ABEE0DB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Jim
It looks more like a message from a=20  GOOSEBERRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
g3kev
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 james.cowburn@virgin.net =
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, = 2011 5:10=20 PM
Subject: Re: LF: Re: WSPR or = QRSS: which=20 is better?

Dinosaur! ;-) ned ludd of radio! Just teasing Mal!=20

Sent from my BlackBerry=AE wireless device

From: "mal hamilton" <g3kevmal@talktalk.net> =
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@bl= acksheep.org=20
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 16:57:08 +0100
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= >
ReplyTo: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= =20
Subject: LF: Re: WSPR or QRSS: which is better?

Roger
QRS is always better than wspr. Only one level = of=20 demodulation needed, just read the dots/dashes as displayed on screen, = whereas=20 wspr and other similar data modes need further demodulation, for = example vy=20 weak wspr traces that do not demodulate could easily be read had = it been=20 on/off keyed QRS mode.
QRS is also a good real time QSO mode, next = best thing=20 to normal CW
 
de mal/g3kev
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Roger=20 Lapthorn
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= =20
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, = 2011 4:42=20 PM
Subject: LF: WSPR or QRSS: = which is=20 better?

A question for the coding experts here: WSPR is an = excellent=20 weak signal beaconing mode, but at what QRSS speed is QRSS "better"=20 ?

73s
Roger G3XBM

--
http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/
http://www.g3xbm.co.uk
http://www.youtube.com/user/g3xbm
https://sites.google.com/site/sub9khz/

------=_NextPart_000_0031_01CC6281.ABEE0DB0--