Return-Path: Received: from rly-mf10.mx.aol.com (rly-mf10.mail.aol.com [172.20.29.180]) by air-mf10.mail.aol.com (v121_r4.4) with ESMTP id MAILINMF104-98549566c22367; Sat, 27 Dec 2008 12:56:07 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-mf10.mx.aol.com (v121_r4.4) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINMF103-98549566c22367; Sat, 27 Dec 2008 12:55:47 -0500 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1LGdNp-0008A4-0O for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2008 17:55:29 +0000 Received: from [83.244.159.144] (helo=relay3.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1LGdNo-00089v-DY for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2008 17:55:28 +0000 Received: from smtp-out-3.talktalk.net ([62.24.128.233] helo=smtp.talktalk.net) by relay3.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1LGdNn-0004xl-BK for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2008 17:55:28 +0000 X-Path: TTSMTP X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApsEADr7VUlOkKB4/2dsb2JhbACEVLg8WI8lhkQ Received: from unknown (HELO mal769a60aa920) ([78.144.160.120]) by smtp.talktalk.net with SMTP; 27 Dec 2008 17:55:07 +0000 Message-ID: <008201c9684c$409e01f0$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920> From: "mal hamilton" To: References: <495466BF.9080402@yahoo.com> <49564E54.2060402@usa.net> <006501c96840$4ddd6380$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920> <49565AB6.1060002@usa.net> Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 17:55:06 -0000 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 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,none Subject: LF: Re: Re: WSPR and CW Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none 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-IP: 193.82.116.20 Glad to hear ur ears are in good shape. QRS is a CW MODE just slower than normal hand sent speed, QRS 1 - 3 is far superior to wspr. It can be read off the screen when wspr will not print out. This is a fact I have observed it every time. WSPR is alright if you want to use it but it is certainly not a superior mode. g3kev ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alberto di Bene" To: Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2008 4:41 PM Subject: LF: Re: WSPR and CW > mal hamilton wrote: >> Have ur EARS checked out, ASYMETRICAL ears do not work on weak signals. >> Any >> wspr signals that I have observed were visible on screen before they >> printed >> out and could be easily read had the signal been sending in QRS mode. >> Your observations are not accurate. If you check visibility of wspr you >> will >> find that it can be seen when it is not printing out. >> G3KEV > > Funny. I had my ears checked out three or four weeks ago at the local > hospital, > as part of a complete checkout I do every couple of years. I have a flat > response > on both ears from below 50 Hz to almost 12 kHz. So my ears are quite ok, > thanks for asking. > > And I am *not* comparing WSPR to QRS, read again my post. I am comparing > WSPR to CW. > WSPR can decode on the screen what aurally is not even possible to ear. > Not even the best, > most qualified and skilled CW operator in this world can decode what he > cannot hear... > WSPR, on the contrary, can. > > 73 Alberto I2PHD > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.0/1865 - Release Date: 12/26/2008 1:01 PM