Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mi02.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 71EED380000A6; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 18:50:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1UE725-00051v-PE for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 23:49:01 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1UE724-00051m-U3 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 23:49:00 +0000 Received: from out1.ip01ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.237]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1UE722-00038w-T6 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 23:48:59 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0CAEZqOlFcEW1//2dsb2JhbAANNo4AtlIEAYFzgyABAQEBAgGBCQsJCAQBAQEJFg8JAwIBAgE9CBMGAgEBiAmobpMPF44GexIGgzoDllOTfA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,810,1355097600"; d="scan'208,217";a="421605453" Received: from host-92-17-109-127.as13285.net (HELO [127.0.0.1]) ([92.17.109.127]) by out1.ip01ir2.opaltelecom.net with ESMTP; 08 Mar 2013 23:48:37 +0000 Message-ID: <513A78D5.2030702@psk31.plus.com> Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 23:48:37 +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: <513A59B1.4010704@psk31.plus.com> <3B98DD89AAE54F03A77870996396B316@AGB> <513A68BE.3000706@psk31.plus.com> <1B980A44055C4709A0D1C90850CAE82B@AGB> In-Reply-To: <1B980A44055C4709A0D1C90850CAE82B@AGB> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 130308-0, 08/03/2013), 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: On 08/03/2013 22:55, Graham wrote: > Could be ? I have not used those modes for a long time .. > didn't like the American square dance , with everything timed and > pre-formatted ..had some fun with the reverse reporting system on > hf ... but that got tedious Cranking the old brain gears here, I seem to remember someone getting upset and wanting to know what he had done wrong and who the snitch was that didn't give a callsign. I searched Google and WSJT but it doesn't come up. I searched the message file in this new install and about the 5th thing it did after start up was print ***WRONG MODE*** this didn't appear in the message window. [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: 80dfd4418e586cee7526d670ae10acbc Subject: Re: LF: Oh Dear Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060303030000000508040204" 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=HTML_MESSAGE 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: 3039ac1d7b8a513a792f6384 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060303030000000508040204 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 08/03/2013 22:55, Graham wrote: > Could be ? I have not used those modes for a long time .. > didn't like the American square dance , with everything timed and > pre-formatted ..had some fun with the reverse reporting system on > hf ... but that got tedious Cranking the old brain gears here, I seem to remember someone getting upset and wanting to know what he had done wrong and who the snitch was that didn't give a callsign. I searched Google and WSJT but it doesn't come up. I searched the message file in this new install and about the 5th thing it did after start up was print ***WRONG MODE*** this didn't appear in the message window. Got it Graham its a personal message from JT to JR. > > psk-D thats a no-no , it will work , but the IMD will be > very high ,with big loss of s/n and you will tx a very > wide signal ......psk produces a two-tone-test envelope Yep we know that, I took a quick look at my signal on another rig this afternoon and it was remarkably good. Dave GWB copied it FB tonight and said it looked fine. Hey *that* was my first ever unsolicited report.!! > > long interleave mfsk is the best suited mode for MF / mf tx set > ups , problem is the long interleave tends to pull the qso out > , but without it , the decode is sporadic What us QRP ops need is a slow bit rate mode, with FEC, of a reasonable width, this is Ham radio we shouldn't need rubidium oscillators. Four unit Opera that just keeps up with arthritic one finger typing and not connected to web reporting.:-) > > G.. > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "g3zjo" > Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 10:39 PM > To: > Subject: Re: LF: Oh Dear > >> Hi G >> >> Just wondering if its possibly an error message, I can't remember >> where I have seen it before certainly not MF. >> >> Ironic, its the first unsolicited recognition of my signal on 600 / >> 630m, other than WSPR and Opera modes, which I always say the >> reporter has no choice. >> >> Seems the ideal mode for QRP 2 Way. Personally I would park it just >> above WSPR15. >> >> What do you say about PK31 with a Class D PA? >> >> Ed >> >> On 08/03/2013 22:10, Graham wrote: >>> Thats handy Ed , Its raining up here , was wondering where >>> the moon was : ) >>> >>> what is not the wrong mode then ? >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------- >>> From: "g3zjo" >>> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 9:35 PM >>> To: >>> Subject: LF: Oh Dear >>> >>>> We are starting this are we.? The frequency has been clear for days so >>>> you do a test QRP test and you get this. Who says? >>>> >>>> Was the QRSS Morse that was ignored this afternoon the wrong mode? >>>> >>>> G3ZJO >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > --------------060303030000000508040204 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 08/03/2013 22:55, Graham wrote:
Could be  ? I have not  used those   modes  for a  long time  .. didn't like the  American square  dance , with  everything timed  and pre-formatted ..had  some  fun with the  reverse  reporting system  on hf ... but that  got  tedious
Cranking the old brain gears here, I seem to remember someone getting upset and wanting to know what he had done wrong and who the snitch was that didn't give a callsign.
I searched Google and WSJT but it doesn't come up.
I searched the message file in this new install and about the 5th thing it did after start up was print ***WRONG MODE*** this didn't appear in the message window.

Got it Graham its a personal message from JT to JR.


psk-D    thats  a  no-no  , it will  work  , but the  IMD will  be  very high  ,with  big  loss  of  s/n  and  you  will  tx  a  very  wide signal ......psk produces  a  two-tone-test  envelope
Yep we know that, I took a quick look at my signal on another rig this afternoon and it was remarkably good. Dave GWB copied it FB tonight and said it looked fine. Hey that was my first ever unsolicited report.!!

long  interleave  mfsk  is the  best  suited  mode for MF / mf  tx set ups , problem is the  long interleave  tends  to  pull the  qso  out  , but without it , the  decode  is  sporadic
What us QRP ops need is a slow bit rate mode, with FEC, of a reasonable width, this is Ham radio we shouldn't need rubidium oscillators. Four unit Opera that just keeps up with arthritic one finger typing and not connected to web reporting. :-)

G..




--------------------------------------------------
From: "g3zjo" <g3zjo@psk31.plus.com>
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 10:39 PM
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Subject: Re: LF: Oh Dear

Hi G

Just wondering if its possibly an error message, I can't remember where I have seen it before certainly not MF.

Ironic, its the first unsolicited recognition of my signal on 600 / 630m, other than WSPR and Opera modes, which I always say the reporter has no choice.

Seems the ideal mode for QRP 2 Way. Personally I would park it just above WSPR15.

What do you say about PK31 with a Class D PA?

Ed

On 08/03/2013 22:10, Graham wrote:
Thats  handy  Ed ,  Its raining  up here  , was  wondering  where  the moon was  : )

what is not the  wrong mode then ?

--------------------------------------------------
From: "g3zjo" <g3zjo@psk31.plus.com>
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 9:35 PM
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Subject: LF: Oh Dear

We are starting this are we.? The frequency has been clear for days so
you do a test QRP test and you get this. Who says?

Was the QRSS Morse that was ignored this afternoon the wrong mode?

G3ZJO








--------------060303030000000508040204--