Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-da01.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 9BACD38000091; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 19:39:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TaFNt-0006Fk-No for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 00:38:45 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TaFNt-0006Fb-Aa for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 00:38:45 +0000 Received: from ppa01.princeton.edu ([128.112.128.213]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TaFNq-0008DQ-VH for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 00:38:44 +0000 Received: from csgsmtp201l.Princeton.EDU (csgsmtp201l.Princeton.EDU [128.112.134.60]) by ppa01.Princeton.EDU (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qAJ0cetI006770 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 19:38:40 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.3] (pool-96-235-189-92.cmdnnj.fios.verizon.net [96.235.189.92] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by csgsmtp201l.Princeton.EDU (8.13.8/8.12.9) with ESMTP id qAJ0cdVH005243 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 19:38:40 -0500 Message-ID: <50A97F8F.4010608@princeton.edu> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 19:38:39 -0500 From: Joe Taylor User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "*rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" References: <50A39DC2.6050703@psk31.plus.com> <50A39E57.3070006@psk31.plus.com> <50A50963.70307@gmx.net> <50A510FE.4000305@psk31.plus.com> <50A532E3.7010803@psk31.plus.com> <50A641BA.6080108@princeton.edu> <50A66ACB.6010008@psk31.plus.com> In-Reply-To: <50A66ACB.6010008@psk31.plus.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.9.8185,1.0.431,0.0.0000 definitions=2012-11-18_08:2012-11-15,2012-11-18,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=quarantine_notspam policy=quarantine score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=6.0.2-1203120001 definitions=main-1211180299 X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) 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 Eddie, Tobias, and all, I've solved the riddle of Eddie's local JT9-2 transmissions that failed to decode. The problem is, as originally suspected, the result of small frequency drifts -- in this case acting together with the Gray-coding applied to the data. [...] Content analysis details: (-2.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust [128.112.128.213 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: 0b2d339ae1d48966556dfb6ad64e2bce 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: 3039ac1d404950a97fcc5af8 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Hi Eddie, Tobias, and all, I've solved the riddle of Eddie's local JT9-2 transmissions that failed to decode. The problem is, as originally suspected, the result of small frequency drifts -- in this case acting together with the Gray-coding applied to the data. I will work on a solution this week, including an appropriate algorithm for measuring and removing small amounts of frequency drift as part of the decoding process. In the meantime, if you're experiencing this problem it's best to stick with JT9-1 because that sub-mode has the largest tone spacing. -- 73, Joe, K1JT