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 x0CL3F9o011084 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 22:03:16 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1giQO6-0007tB-NW for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 21:00:14 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1giQO6-0007t2-Dy for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 21:00:14 +0000 Received: from rhcavuit03.kulnet.kuleuven.be ([2a02:2c40:0:c0::25:136]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1giQO3-0001yg-Hj for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 21:00:13 +0000 X-KULeuven-Envelope-From: rik.strobbe@kuleuven.be X-KULeuven-Scanned: Found to be clean X-KULeuven-ID: 4F7B612000D.A4DAE X-KULeuven-Information: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Received: from icts-p-smtps-1.cc.kuleuven.be (icts-p-smtps-1e.kulnet.kuleuven.be [134.58.240.33]) by rhcavuit03.kulnet.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F7B612000D for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 22:00:08 +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-1.cc.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 424C640B4; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 22:00:08 +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; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 22:00:08 +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; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 22:00:08 +0100 X-Kuleuven: This mail passed the K.U.Leuven mailcluster From: Rik Strobbe To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" , "rsgb-lf-group@groups.io" , "Discussion of the Lowfer (US, European, & UK) and MedFer bands" , "600MRG@mailman.qth.net" <600MRG@mailman.qth.net>, "paul@n1bug.com" Thread-Topic: [600MRG] JT9-10 vs JT9-5 test Thread-Index: AQHUqoEjoc/dOnqlzUKYLoNbI+jA8KWsHfGb Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 21:00:08 +0000 Message-ID: <1547326807839.95696@kuleuven.be> References: <7c1d6628-d950-9548-995c-9ebc6039bfed@n1bug.com> In-Reply-To: <7c1d6628-d950-9548-995c-9ebc6039bfed@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: -2.3 (--) 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, I will monitor both modes overnight on 136kHz dial and report in the morning. In JT9-10 I had 5 copies of R7NT so far (QRB 2505km). 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T Content analysis details: (-2.3 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust [2a02:2c40:0:c0:0:0:25:136 listed in] [list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record X-Scan-Signature: e6de17d69e46ff4ea8db042ef2cd7e46 Subject: LF: Re: [600MRG] JT9-10 vs JT9-5 test 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 x0CL3F9o011084 Hello Paul, I will monitor both modes overnight on 136kHz dial and report in the morning. In JT9-10 I had 5 copies of R7NT so far (QRB 2505km). 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T ________________________________________ Van: 600mrg-bounces@mailman.qth.net <600mrg-bounces@mailman.qth.net> namens N1BUG Verzonden: zaterdag 12 januari 2019 15:14 Aan: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; rsgb-lf-group@groups.io; Discussion of the Lowfer (US, European, & UK) and MedFer bands; 600MRG@mailman.qth.net Onderwerp: [600MRG] JT9-10 vs JT9-5 test Local weather and snow/ice conditions have improved enough to transmit on 2200m. I am running a JT9-10 vs JT9-5 test on 136.395 kHz (136.000 'dial' plus 395 Hz audio). All reception reports will be useful and appreciated. Reports from distant stations who can monitor both modes during the test will provide the best comparison between the modes. If there are no problems with equipment I plan to let this test run for at least two nights, maybe three. 73, Paul N1BUG ______________________________________________________________ 600MRG mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/600mrg Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:600MRG@mailman.qth.net Message delivered to rik.strobbe@kuleuven.be This list hosted by: https://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: https://www.qsl.net/donate.html