Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dd01.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id BC872380000B5; Sat, 9 Feb 2013 13:42:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1U4FMj-0005xK-1O for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 09 Feb 2013 18:41:33 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1U4FMi-0005x0-8T for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 09 Feb 2013 18:41:32 +0000 Received: from out1.ip04ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.240]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1U4FMg-0001zl-Nf for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 09 Feb 2013 18:41:31 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApMBAPSWFlFcEFpI/2dsb2JhbAANOME8gxMBAQQ4URQYJQ8CPAoTCAEBtBySfY1SgQ6DKgOWJJNZgWYk X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,634,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="399499533" Received: from host-92-16-90-72.as13285.net (HELO [127.0.0.1]) ([92.16.90.72]) by out1.ip04ir2.opaltelecom.net with ESMTP; 09 Feb 2013 18:41:09 +0000 Message-ID: <51169844.60906@psk31.plus.com> Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 18:41:08 +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 References: <5116977F.50108@npton.plus.com> In-Reply-To: <5116977F.50108@npton.plus.com> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <5116977F.50108@npton.plus.com> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 130209-0, 09/02/2013), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean 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 LF WSPR'ers I am testing a stand alone WSPR modular system, I must apologies for the arbitrary power level displayed as the Code is fixed on PIC and the power level is variable.. Any comments on the apparent EIRP compared to other signals at the same distance are welcome. [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- X-Scan-Signature: 59677119386dcf9f1872cb454dc1331d Subject: LF: Fwd: WSPR Test 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: 3039ac1d408d5116989116dd X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Hi LF WSPR'ers I am testing a stand alone WSPR modular system, I must apologies for the arbitrary power level displayed as the Code is fixed on PIC and the power level is variable.. Any comments on the apparent EIRP compared to other signals at the same distance are welcome. The set up is not finalised, I have just temporarily added a mechanical relay on the enable line to get it TX'ing every 10 mins. 73 Eddie G3ZJO