Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by klubnl.pl (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8+deb8u2) with ESMTP id wACKQggb028328 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2018 21:26:43 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1gMIix-0003eO-UV for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 12 Nov 2018 20:22:20 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1gMIiw-0003eF-B3 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 12 Nov 2018 20:22:18 +0000 Received: from rhcavuit02.kulnet.kuleuven.be ([2a02:2c40:0:c0::25:130]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.91_59-0488984) (envelope-from ) id 1gMIiu-0002eN-O3 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 12 Nov 2018 20:22:17 +0000 X-KULeuven-Envelope-From: rik.strobbe@kuleuven.be X-KULeuven-Scanned: Found to be clean X-KULeuven-ID: 9BC7B12035B.A44C5 X-KULeuven-Information: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Received: from icts-p-smtps-2.cc.kuleuven.be (icts-p-smtps-2e.kulnet.kuleuven.be [134.58.240.34]) by rhcavuit02.kulnet.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BC7B12035B for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2018 21:22:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from ICTS-S-EXMBX18.luna.kuleuven.be (icts-s-exmbx18.luna.kuleuven.be [10.112.11.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by icts-p-smtps-2.cc.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 928FD200A3; Mon, 12 Nov 2018 21:22:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from ICTS-S-EXMBX27.luna.kuleuven.be (10.112.11.62) by ICTS-S-EXMBX18.luna.kuleuven.be (10.112.11.49) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Mon, 12 Nov 2018 21:22:14 +0100 Received: from ICTS-S-EXMBX27.luna.kuleuven.be ([fe80::291a:cc4f:6953:698a]) by ICTS-S-EXMBX27.luna.kuleuven.be ([fe80::291a:cc4f:6953:698a%25]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Mon, 12 Nov 2018 21:22:14 +0100 X-Kuleuven: This mail passed the K.U.Leuven mailcluster From: Rik Strobbe To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" , "600MRG@mailman.qth.net" <600MRG@mailman.qth.net> Thread-Topic: LF: Re: MF JT9-2 report Thread-Index: AQHUeoHpEHqF4lWtk0efxB9V/GWCoaVMFv73gABiZwCAABr5zQ== Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 20:22:14 +0000 Message-ID: <1542054134132.88753@kuleuven.be> References: <0ddf61c2-de83-aeef-f929-a87b698f560c@n1bug.com> <1542027746735.33850@kuleuven.be>,<9fe9301c-321b-6388-ffc9-979e48ef6454@n1bug.com> In-Reply-To: <9fe9301c-321b-6388-ffc9-979e48ef6454@n1bug.com> Accept-Language: nl-BE, en-GB, en-US Content-Language: nl-BE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.112.50.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Hello Paul, decoder.txt seems OK. I am sorry if I gave the impression that I thought you were complaining. Certainly not, all reports on crashes are abnormal behaviour are welcome. But these rare crashes are very difficult to trance down. As you stated, for now I will focus on testing and improving SlowJT9. At a later stage I will try to intercept possible crashes. [...] Content analysis details: (-0.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [2a02:2c40:0:c0:0:0:25:130 listed in] [list.dnswl.org] -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record X-Scan-Signature: 32d4aaaf019758ff5a0d8e92eec683e6 Subject: Re: LF: Re: MF JT9-2 report Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by klubnl.pl id wACKQggb028328 Hello Paul, decoder.txt seems OK. I am sorry if I gave the impression that I thought you were complaining. Certainly not, all reports on crashes are abnormal behaviour are welcome. But these rare crashes are very difficult to trance down. As you stated, for now I will focus on testing and improving SlowJT9. At a later stage I will try to intercept possible crashes. Thanks for your help! 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T ________________________________________ Van: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org namens N1BUG Verzonden: maandag 12 november 2018 20:40 Aan: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; 600MRG@mailman.qth.net Onderwerp: Re: LF: Re: MF JT9-2 report Hello Rik, > A new version of SlowJT9, with correct reports and the cycle bug > fixed, will be uploaded later today. v0.9.02 installed and monitoring 630m JT9-2 here. > Regarding the drift: keep in mind that in the JT9-2 -> JT9 > conversion process frequencies are doubled, so any drift also > will inevitably be doubled in that process. Yes of course. The drift I measured was the actual RF drift of the signal, measured visually with a high resolution waterfall external to SlowJT9. The actual drift passed to the decoder would be double the amount I reported. > About the crash: what was the content of the decoded.txt file? > Maybe that will give me a clue what happened. Contents of the file: 0359 18 -15 0.3 2188. 0 CQ WB4JWM EM83 JT9 > I have SlowJT9 (in > JT9-2 mode) running since 9 Nov 20 UTC and it was still running > this morning (12 Nov 6 UTC). It is running side by side with > WSJT-X and Google Chrome, no other apps. I must admit that I > haven't paid much attention to intercepting errors so far, > another item to add to my to-do list. I was not complaining! It ran all night the previous night on JT9-1 and for at least 8 hours last night on JT9-2 prior to the crash. I don't think it is important to put too much work into tracking down the reason for a few crashes right now. Better to continue testing and see if it will be worth continuing the project. Thank you again for your work! I look forward to more testing and I hope SlowJT9 can help with trans-Atlantic QSOs on both 630m and 2200m. As I have said several times before, we are in need of some help on 2200m. JT9-1 requires quite strong signals and there are few or no alternatives aside from DFCW/QRSS. 73, Paul N1BUG