Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-de06.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id D9123380000A3; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 09:48:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TBnII-0006E9-D0 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:47:54 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TBnIH-0006E0-Vz for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:47:53 +0100 Received: from smtpout3.wanadoo.co.uk ([80.12.242.59] helo=smtpout.wanadoo.co.uk) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TBnIG-0000hj-9p for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:47:52 +0100 Received: from AGB ([2.26.22.87]) by mwinf5d45 with ME id yDnr1j00F1skBk203DnriU; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:47:51 +0200 Message-ID: <5B1240512D924B18805EFC02AFBF773C@AGB> From: "Graham" To: References: <504E733E.5000208@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>,<8CF5E5BCA46639D-8FC-4829A@webmail-d050.sysops.aol.com> <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB22D26@ICTS-S-MBX5.luna.kuleuven.be>,<82bc7bcd97ea679e8be267e8e2add69c@dl1dbc.net> <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB22E5E@ICTS-S-MBX5.luna.kuleuven.be> <471908b0534586163cf3bf2502fe2b9b@dl1dbc.net> <003501cd90eb$a6230680$0501a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> In-Reply-To: <003501cd90eb$a6230680$0501a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:47:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416 X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) 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: As a member of the CRD group , will have to back Mal on this one, the longer Op modes are quite immune from static , due to the length of the tx pulses and the non-linear routines in the dsp engine , as its a averaging system , then 'blips' are not a problem .........yes 100% noise will lower the s/n level , [...] Content analysis details: (0.2 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [80.12.242.59 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.2 STOX_REPLY_TYPE STOX_REPLY_TYPE X-Scan-Signature: 5f132ffce194fb93f2267a462d849f2b Subject: Re: RE: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR? Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type=original 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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME 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: 3039ac1d40ce505092cb1a99 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none As a member of the CRD group , will have to back Mal on this one, the longer Op modes are quite immune from static , due to the length of the tx pulses and the non-linear routines in the dsp engine , as its a averaging system , then 'blips' are not a problem .........yes 100% noise will lower the s/n level , I think it was Mike , who noted the level of decodes during static where unexpected ...... G. -------------------------------------------------- From: "mal hamilton" Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 2:36 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR? > In the real world of radio there is always QRM, QSB and QRN so let us have > a > meaningful test/result > g3kev > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sabine Cremer" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 1:25 PM > Subject: LF: RE: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR? > > >> Hi Rik, >> >> > as mentioned in the report the test were done off-air, by adding >> > equal amounts of pure white noise to WSPR / Opera signals of >> > identical >> > amplitude. >> > So no QRM/QRN or QSB involved. Maybe I will do these tests over with >> > QRN and/or QSB added (if there is some interest and if time permits). >> >> I would be very interested in the results! Don't get me wrong, I don't >> want to know what the *best software* is, I would like to learn what are >> the differences using the various algorithms and WHY this is so! It is >> obviously, that you are the right person to give these answers. ;-) >> >> 73 >> Sabine, DL1DBC >> >> >> > >