Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mc04.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 1276738000098; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:17:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1QwLkI-0000sT-5s for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 23:16:26 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1QwLkH-0000sK-Lz for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 23:16:25 +0100 Received: from smtp6.freeserve.com ([193.252.22.191]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <g8fzk@g8fzk.fsnet.co.uk>) id 1QwLkF-0001cK-FF for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 23:16:25 +0100 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf3619.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id C25EF7000086 for <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 00:16:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf3619.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id B5CA37000088 for <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 00:16:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from AGB (unknown [2.26.17.7]) by mwinf3619.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with SMTP id 8D3307000086 for <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 00:16:17 +0200 (CEST) X-ME-UUID: 20110824221617578.8D3307000086@mwinf3619.me.freeserve.com Message-ID: <E9842D8A6CAB4C1A90B5F271011ED3AE@AGB> From: "Graham" <g8fzk@g8fzk.fsnet.co.uk> To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org> References: <CAHAQVWOwLaz104cZGhvbLr23zt+03-J2yMBTVm+Cep-rKFTmvw@mail.gmail.com><001b01cc6276$7aa1d170$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <98090600-1314202243-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-349814214-@b1.c4.bise7.blackberry> <003401cc6279$4a606d20$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> In-Reply-To: <003401cc6279$4a606d20$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 23:16:17 +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-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 110824-1, 24/08/2011), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=0.234 Subject: Re: LF: Re: WSPR or QRSS: which is better? Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0062_01CC62B3.D384B720" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0 tests=HTML_40_50,HTML_MESSAGE, 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-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:456914752:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d604c4e5578603c79 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0062_01CC62B3.D384B720 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable So age is not the reciprocal of whit then ? From: mal hamilton=20 Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 5:17 PM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Subject: Re: LF: Re: WSPR or QRSS: which is better? Jim It looks more like a message from a GOOSEBERRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! g3kev ----- Original Message -----=20 From: james.cowburn@virgin.net=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 5:10 PM Subject: Re: LF: Re: WSPR or QRSS: which is better? Dinosaur! ;-) ned ludd of radio! Just teasing Mal!=20 Sent from my BlackBerry=AE wireless device -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- From: "mal hamilton" <g3kevmal@talktalk.net>=20 Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 16:57:08 +0100 To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org> ReplyTo: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Subject: LF: Re: WSPR or QRSS: which is better? Roger QRS is always better than wspr. Only one level of demodulation needed, = just read the dots/dashes as displayed on screen, whereas wspr and other = similar data modes need further demodulation, for example vy weak wspr = traces that do not demodulate could easily be read had it been on/off = keyed QRS mode. QRS is also a good real time QSO mode, next best thing to normal CW de mal/g3kev ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Roger Lapthorn=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 4:42 PM Subject: LF: WSPR or QRSS: which is better? A question for the coding experts here: WSPR is an excellent weak = signal beaconing mode, but at what QRSS speed is QRSS "better" ? 73s Roger G3XBM --=20 http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/ http://www.g3xbm.co.uk http://www.youtube.com/user/g3xbm https://sites.google.com/site/sub9khz/ ------=_NextPart_000_0062_01CC62B3.D384B720 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3DWindows-1252 = http-equiv=3DContent-Type> <META name=3DGENERATOR content=3D"MSHTML 8.00.6001.19120"> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: = 15px"=20 id=3DMailContainerBody leftMargin=3D0 topMargin=3D0 bgColor=3D#ffffff=20 CanvasTabStop=3D"true" name=3D"Compose message area"> <DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial>So age is not the = reciprocal of=20 whit then ?</FONT></DIV> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt Tahoma"> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV style=3D"BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5"> <DIV style=3D"font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A=20 title=3D"mailto:g3kevmal@talktalk.net CTRL + Click to follow link"=20 href=3D"mailto:g3kevmal@talktalk.net">mal hamilton</A> </DIV> <DIV><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, August 24, 2011 5:17 PM</DIV> <DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=3Drsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 href=3D"mailto:rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org">rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= </A>=20 </DIV> <DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: LF: Re: WSPR or QRSS: which is=20 better?</DIV></DIV></DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial>Jim</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial>It looks more like a message from a=20 GOOSEBERRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial>g3kev</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE=20 style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; = PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"=20 dir=3Dltr> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV=20 style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: = black"><B>From:</B>=20 <A title=3Djames.cowburn@virgin.net=20 href=3D"mailto:james.cowburn@virgin.net">james.cowburn@virgin.net</A> = </DIV> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A = title=3Drsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 = href=3D"mailto:rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org">rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= </A>=20 </DIV> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, August 24, = 2011 5:10=20 PM</DIV> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: LF: Re: WSPR or = QRSS: which=20 is better?</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV>Dinosaur! ;-) ned ludd of radio! Just teasing Mal!=20 <P>Sent from my BlackBerry=AE wireless device</P> <HR> <DIV><B>From: </B>"mal hamilton" <<A=20 href=3D"mailto:g3kevmal@talktalk.net">g3kevmal@talktalk.net</A>> = </DIV> <DIV><B>Sender: </B><A=20 = href=3D"mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org">owner-rsgb_lf_group@bl= acksheep.org</A>=20 </DIV> <DIV><B>Date: </B>Wed, 24 Aug 2011 16:57:08 +0100</DIV> <DIV><B>To: </B><<A=20 = href=3D"mailto:rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org">rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= </A>></DIV> <DIV><B>ReplyTo: </B><A=20 = href=3D"mailto:rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org">rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= </A>=20 </DIV> <DIV><B>Subject: </B>LF: Re: WSPR or QRSS: which is better?</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial>Roger</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial>QRS is always better than wspr. Only one level = of=20 demodulation needed, just read the dots/dashes as displayed on screen, = whereas=20 wspr and other similar data modes need further demodulation, for = example vy=20 weak wspr traces that do not demodulate could easily be read had = it been=20 on/off keyed QRS mode.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial>QRS is also a good real time QSO mode, next = best thing=20 to normal CW</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial>de mal/g3kev</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE=20 style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; = PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV=20 style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: = black"><B>From:</B>=20 <A title=3Drogerlapthorn@gmail.com = href=3D"mailto:rogerlapthorn@gmail.com">Roger=20 Lapthorn</A> </DIV> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20 title=3Drsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 = href=3D"mailto:rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org">rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= </A>=20 </DIV> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, August 24, = 2011 4:42=20 PM</DIV> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> LF: WSPR or QRSS: = which is=20 better?</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV>A question for the coding experts here: WSPR is an = excellent=20 weak signal beaconing mode, but at what QRSS speed is QRSS "better"=20 ?<BR><BR>73s<BR>Roger G3XBM<BR clear=3Dall><BR>-- <BR><A=20 href=3D"http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/"=20 target=3D_blank>http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/</A><BR><A=20 href=3D"http://www.g3xbm.co.uk" = target=3D_blank>http://www.g3xbm.co.uk</A><BR><A=20 href=3D"http://www.youtube.com/user/g3xbm"=20 target=3D_blank>http://www.youtube.com/user/g3xbm</A><BR><A=20 href=3D"https://sites.google.com/site/sub9khz/"=20 = target=3D_blank>https://sites.google.com/site/sub9khz/</A><BR><BR></BLOCK= QUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <br>= <br>= </BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_0062_01CC62B3.D384B720--