Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.67.23.138 with SMTP id ia10csp555909pad; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 08:42:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.187.2 with SMTP id fo2mr3089361wic.65.1380296525820; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 08:42:05 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id lr3si3111974wjb.56.1969.12.31.16.00.00; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 08:42:05 -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=fail (test mode) header.i=@comcast.net Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1VPZjs-0001d0-EO for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 16:13:52 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1VPZjr-0001cr-QI for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 16:13:51 +0100 Received: from qmta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.64]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1VPZjp-0006a5-9B for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 16:13:50 +0100 Received: from omta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.87]) by qmta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id WBKs1m0071swQuc57FDnPp; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:13:47 +0000 Received: from DELL4 ([71.234.119.9]) by omta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id WFDm1m00E0CFS1j3bFDmjF; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:13:47 +0000 Message-ID: <00b401cebb94$29946cb0$6d01a8c0@DELL4> From: To: References: <5244AB81.8020503@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> ,<5245765A.3030301@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <52459149.7070307@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 11:13:46 -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=1380294827; bh=JkKY+AhH+JXZSq5YFLauiPgCv3NwvOSMqWET+DLpkKI=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:From:To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=kNe6+FnV9KA/eD5/QCpY2hW2YXZJIXWpwiNYzPDnndY3CWwEIool80LyZmNfa8mg0 fkXVZYaye7Tflugnun70g1rN0k/i5vHO8lcja6/HH/EP0gct1Xy9t5MS6/nRoVZgJr 6HhRFKLwwQbWqMAgmN5jqjzjAn0woQ65mWDdp8HD0dT+QE9goGvHBmgzWBpnmnupB0 tKlk5oYDdTFbTG607OQY9/KQDRQBJoUGH4840oGBRjm6DrZgr3VZkiSYbGoeOTwB4W oiYxNog91aYdiRVu5XV3K+mzn8WYbNz+rq8xzAeNUUTUOBPDASpQp+/Ob6qD0RMliL JWvrhEpzf/ZMw== 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 WSPR2 vs. OP4 http://www.w1vd.com/WSPROP4082312A.pdf . Basically, where WSPR2 showed solid copy OP4 had a number of misses. Test conditions: [...] 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 [76.96.62.64 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: 617a5faed955112e448650f4d003a84d Subject: LF: Re: QRSS OP WSPR Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00B1_01CEBB72.A22F7C90" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.1 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE, 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: 923 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00B1_01CEBB72.A22F7C90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Stefan WSPR2 vs. OP4 http://www.w1vd.com/WSPROP4082312A.pdf . Basically, where = WSPR2 showed solid copy OP4 had a number of misses. Test conditions:=20 Transmit end: single transmitter, single antenna - signals combined in = common TX setup Receive end: single receive antenna, single receiver, single = computer/sound card - WSPR and OP running simultaneously Power at TX end adjusted to provide weak signal at receive end. Standard = weak signal receive setup was used ... complete with QRN, QRM, other = signals etc. Test began during daylight, proceded through the night and = ended in daylight. =20 Jay W1VD WD2XNS WE2XGR/2 WG2XRS/2 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Stefan Sch=E4fer=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 10:08 AM Subject: LF: QRSS OP WSPR Bob,=20 For QRSS reception on 4000m, better ask G4WGT or F5WK or F6CNI for a = preferred frequency. Ort maybe TF3HZ? He is reading the reflector as = well. At least i saw the flag from Iceland on the flagcounter of SC8CS's = new grabber which was announced here :-)) BTW, regarding OP65, Jay/W1VD recently did some tests comparing OP4 = and WSPR-2. The summary was something like "WSPR-2 is as "sensitive" as = OP8" !!. Correct me Jay. That means, instead transmitting OP65, you = could use WSPR-15 instead and may have 4 times higher probabbility to = get a decode, e.g. if there is just a short propagation window like on = 137 kHz. 73, Stefan Am 27.09.2013 15:55, schrieb Bob Raide:=20 Stefan; It is same here. But you can't do everything-transmit and receive = at same time no go. =20 I have a similar PC got from neighbor last season a Samsung less = than two years old. Big difference from little ACER PC! I think I am going to stick with QRSS 60 for anymore 73 kHz work. = What freq might be best for UK/Euro work? I understand that 72.4 is not = good in UK/Europe. Seems that 74.5-74.6 seems best from comments I am = getting? Any suggestions appreciated-Bob =20 ------=_NextPart_000_00B1_01CEBB72.A22F7C90 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Stefan
 
WSPR2 vs. OP4 http://www.w1vd.com/WSPRO= P4082312A.pdf .=20 Basically, where WSPR2 showed solid copy OP4 had a number=20 of misses.
 
Test conditions:
 
Transmit end: single transmitter, = single=20 antenna - signals combined in common TX setup
 
Receive end: single receive antenna, = single=20 receiver, single computer/sound card - WSPR and OP running=20 simultaneously
 
Power at TX end adjusted to provide=20 weak signal at receive end. Standard weak signal receive setup was = used ...=20 complete with QRN, QRM, other signals etc. Test began during = daylight,=20 proceded through the night and ended in=20 daylight.    
 
Jay W1VD  WD2XNS  = WE2XGR/2 =20 WG2XRS/2
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Stefan = Sch=E4fer
Sent: Friday, September 27, = 2013 10:08=20 AM
Subject: LF: QRSS OP WSPR

Bob,

For QRSS reception on 4000m, better ask = G4WGT or=20 F5WK or F6CNI for a preferred frequency. Ort maybe TF3HZ? He is = reading the=20 reflector as well. At least i saw the flag from Iceland on the = flagcounter of=20 SC8CS's new grabber which was announced here :-))

BTW, = regarding OP65,=20 Jay/W1VD recently did some tests comparing OP4 and WSPR-2. The summary = was=20 something like "WSPR-2 is as "sensitive" as OP8" !!. Correct me Jay. = That=20 means, instead transmitting OP65, you could use WSPR-15 instead and = may have 4=20 times higher probabbility to get a decode, e.g. if there is just a = short=20 propagation window like on 137 kHz.

73, Stefan

Am = 27.09.2013=20 15:55, schrieb Bob Raide:=20
Stefan;
It is same here.  But you can't do=20 everything-transmit and receive at same time no go. 
I have = a=20 similar PC got from neighbor last season a Samsung less than = two years=20 old.  Big difference from little ACER PC!
I think I am going = to=20 stick with QRSS 60 for anymore 73 kHz work.  What freq = might be=20 best for UK/Euro work?  I understand that 72.4 is not good in=20 UK/Europe.  Seems that 74.5-74.6 seems best from comments I am=20 getting?
Any suggestions=20 appreciated-Bob
 
------=_NextPart_000_00B1_01CEBB72.A22F7C90--