DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=btopenworld.com;
  h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Message-ID:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE;
  b=LX/WghZq8oORF42zkUtfJXovJoVDRI6eFMNVY9C99DyPoCD5UC83Li7Csd30EmP0Gw/yiRMNrvZdRF3dePzXhXLupCFQSnfa2HjbJLnRIZCBUTFVAKgkjy/VKe2qS9XDydZY+trEkjrs2KDfDcX7QpYTmnQDGtxYPdbV6WvkrvE=  ;
Message-ID: <E8FDFAF473754AADACD6F4B6EA2B09F9@JimPC>
From: "James Moritz" <james.moritz@btopenworld.com>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <fc7eccec0901311002g2cd2df08t70a15345ebd0131@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <fc7eccec0901311002g2cd2df08t70a15345ebd0131@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 18:56:02 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
DomainKey-Status: good (testing) 
Subject: LF: Re: Anoterh WSPR timing error
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Dear Andy, LF Group,

Oddly enough, at the time your e-mail arrived, I noticed on the WSPR display 
that your signal frequency had jumped from  503869 to 503883 Hz. It stayed 
there for 2 frames (1838, 1840utc) and during that time it did not decode. 
After that, it reverted to normal frequency, and decoded normally. The other 
signals on the spectrogram behaved normally during this time, so I'm sure 
this was nothing to do with the receiver here.

Cheers, Jim Moritz
73 de M0BMU

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andy Talbot" <andy.g4jnt@googlemail.com>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Cc: <jfell@tesco.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 6:02 PM
Subject: LF: Anoterh WSPR timing error


> John, G0API, has been monitoring my QRP WSPR beacon most of the afternoon,
> and getting the occasional decode at a S/N of -19dB, ie quite good.
> However, he only manages a decode about one time in 10, randomly.  The
> frequency is usually reported as ....855 instead of the ...870 it should 
> be,
> although once in a while, it reports 870 and gives a proper decode.   So 
> it
> looks as if he may have some sort of intermitetnt fault that affects
> sampling rate.
>