Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dc04.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id DE87E38000094; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 13:22:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TZ44E-0001vT-2L for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:21:34 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TZ44D-0001vK-Ez for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:21:33 +0000 Received: from out1.ip07ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.243]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TZ44B-00078E-6n for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:21:32 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag8CAMAhpVBcGSzx/2dsb2JhbAANNw7DSwEBgg0BAQEBAzgRQAsJCwQJFg8JAwIBAgFFBgEMCAEBiBSpIJNXjDGGLAOVfJJ1PQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.83,258,1352073600"; d="scan'208";a="53916047" Received: from host-92-25-44-241.as13285.net (HELO [192.168.2.3]) ([92.25.44.241]) by out1.ip07ir2.opaltelecom.net with ESMTP; 15 Nov 2012 18:21:28 +0000 Message-ID: <50A532E3.7010803@psk31.plus.com> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:22:27 +0000 From: g3zjo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org, Joe Taylor References: <50A39DC2.6050703@psk31.plus.com> <50A39E57.3070006@psk31.plus.com> <50A50963.70307@gmx.net> <50A510FE.4000305@psk31.plus.com> In-Reply-To: <50A510FE.4000305@psk31.plus.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) 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: Hi Tobias / Joe I checked this, first I am very sorry for getting you to download almost blank files, I selected the 2 minute quiet periods between my transmissions by mistake. I now have deleted those. [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- X-Scan-Signature: 8ef270cc2ec30cd34b6313d7ada17a45 Subject: Re: LF: Fwd: JT9-2 failed now JT9-1 500khz + 1400hz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed 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-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d408450a532f740f1 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Hi Tobias / Joe I checked this, first I am very sorry for getting you to download almost blank files, I selected the 2 minute quiet periods between my transmissions by mistake. I now have deleted those. Replaying the remaining three I get one that decodes and 2 that don't the same as when rx'd live. Joe K1JT what is your verdict on these JT9-2 files from my TX please. 73 Eddie On 15/11/2012 15:57, g3zjo wrote: > Thanks Tobias > > That is most interesting. there should be 3 that decoded fine and 2 > that failed it seems that my human error selected 2 wrong files which > leaves 2 that should have been OK and the last one which shows 1.142 > sec time shift which was a non decode. > > There should be no timing problems at all unless they are introduced > within the software,my computer times are spot on and do not vary > during the short test periods, the fail always comes after 5,6, or 7 > TX RX periods then remains. Hmm. > > 73 Eddie > > > > On 15/11/2012 15:25, Tobias DG3LV wrote: >> Hello Eddie ! >> >> Those files, that do not decode directly in WSJT-X, could be decoded >> if replayed with a (round about) -1 second timeshift. Using the >> "audacity"-program as a (time-shifted-) tone source WSJT-X (rev 2717) >> did decode 1244, 1248, 1252 files correctly : >> 1340 10 18 -0.3 1408.93 0.00 G3ZJO TEST >> (UTC is time of replay) >> >> (Files 1246 and 1250 were almost "silence", i.e. no JT9 tones.) >> >> The JT9-tones start at : >> 1244: 1.096 sec >> 1248: 1.080 sec >> 1252: 1.142 sec >> after the begin of the file. >> >> Maybe this helps locating the problem. >> >> 73 de dg3lv Tobias >> >> Am 14.11.2012 14:36, schrieb g3zjo: >>> >>> The usual happened to my local de-codes 6 or 7 transmit periods and >>> they >>> fail to de-code. >>> >>> Transmitter drift is noted as less than 0.75Hz in a 4minute RX - TX >>> period. After 7 decodes they failed, I assume the drift becomes more >>> rapid than the tolerance level over time. >>> >>> The files are, 3 before 2 after de-code fail :- >>> >>> https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D0881137_61669144_98927 >>> https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D0881137_61669144_98929 >>> https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D0881137_61669144_98921 >>> https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D0881137_61669144_98923 >>> https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D0881137_61669144_98066 >>> >>> Eddie >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2441/5395 - Release Date: >> 11/14/12 >> >> > > > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2441/5395 - Release Date: 11/14/12 > >