Message-ID: <5BE710B0.90000@posteo.de>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 18:09:04 +0100
From: DK7FC <selberdenken@posteo.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <1320399704.180352.1541864234370.ref@mail.yahoo.com>,<1320399704.180352.1541864234370@mail.yahoo.com> <1541868852867.84353@kuleuven.be>
In-Reply-To: <1541868852867.84353@kuleuven.be>
Subject: Re: LF: SlowJT9: 1st QSO and 2nd bug found
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------040705070501040109020006"
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040705070501040109020006
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Rik,

Am 10.11.2018 17:55, schrieb Rik Strobbe:
>
> - Do JT9-2 and JT9-5 "in the real world" (with ionoshepric 
> instabilies, drifting transmitter and receivers) have a significant 
> advantage over JT9?
>
Certainly they will. The old versions also supported JT9-10 and JT9-30 
which is useful for LF, but nor for MF of course.
>
> - Is there sufficient interest of the LF/MF community to use thse modes?
>
I expect that any QSO mode (except CW!) will only rise activity for a 
short period, like a weekend, for maybe 2 or 3 time per season. Isn't 
that what we all observe since the last 10 years?
>
> 3. I haven't had any crash so far, but it is better to be safe 
> than sorry. Maybe I can add a "don't show this message again" option.
>
Oh yes :-)
There is always a risk when you allow a software to drive your PA, beta 
version or not.

73, Stefan

--------------040705070501040109020006
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
 http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hi Rik,<br>
<br>
Am 10.11.2018 17:55, schrieb Rik Strobbe:
<blockquote cite="mid:1541868852867.84353@kuleuven.be" type="cite">
  <meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
 content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
  <style type="text/css" style="display: none;"><!-- p { margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; }--></style>
  <p>- Do JT9-2 and JT9-5 "in the real world" (with ionoshepric
instabilies, drifting transmitter and receivers) have a significant
advantage over JT9?<br>
  </p>
</blockquote>
Certainly they will. The old versions also supported JT9-10 and JT9-30
which is useful for LF, but nor for MF of course.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1541868852867.84353@kuleuven.be" type="cite">
  <p></p>
  <p>- Is there&nbsp;sufficient interest of the LF/MF community to use thse
modes?<br>
  </p>
</blockquote>
I expect that any QSO mode (except CW!) will only rise activity for a
short period, like a weekend, for maybe 2 or 3 time per season. Isn't
that what we all observe since the last 10 years?
<blockquote cite="mid:1541868852867.84353@kuleuven.be" type="cite">
  <p>3. I haven't had any crash so far, but it is better to be safe
than&nbsp;sorry. Maybe I can add a "don't show this message again" option.</p>
</blockquote>
Oh yes :-)<br>
There is always a risk when you allow a software to drive your PA, beta
version or not.<br>
<br>
73, Stefan<br>
</body>
</html>

--------------040705070501040109020006--