Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mj06.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 64D9B380000AF; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 07:56:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1UkvFf-0004h4-5s for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 07 Jun 2013 12:54:39 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1UkvFe-0004gv-PO for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 07 Jun 2013 12:54:38 +0100 Received: from nina.ucs.mun.ca ([134.153.232.76]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1UkvFc-0000PB-PJ for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 07 Jun 2013 12:54:37 +0100 Received: from plato.ucs.mun.ca (plato.ucs.mun.ca [134.153.232.153]) by nina.ucs.mun.ca (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id r57BsXTI006293 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 09:24:33 -0230 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 09:24:33 -0230 (NDT) From: jcraig@mun.ca X-X-Sender: jcraig@plato.ucs.mun.ca To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org In-Reply-To: <4900D3D7C0EF4814B022AF711D39F7D6@White> Message-ID: References: <51AA488C.4020800@eastlink.ca> <9F4D930ED1F64F7C974C9F3570FE5DEA@White> <106509721.20130603101147@mterrier.net> <511259661.20130605104210@mterrier.net> <22F50727DAB943178CABF2FE9A731025@GaryAsus> <89A40DBD5FD24F7DAF1DC48FF71ABC37@White> <4900D3D7C0EF4814B022AF711D39F7D6@White> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MUN-Disclaimer: http://www.mun.ca/cc/policies/elect_communications_disclaimer_2012.php X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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: Markus, Thank-you for mentioning this problem. If it's QRO -> DDS it's likely due to shoddy construction technique by the operator! When this has been dealt with, we can try some OP32. 73 Joe [...] Content analysis details: (-0.5 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.5 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: ac0f6ff1af52b6036ac1f4fe0c2bd52c Subject: Re: LF: 137.7770 kHz Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_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: 3039ac1d7b9a51b1ca5b27ec X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Markus, Thank-you for mentioning this problem. If it's QRO -> DDS it's likely due to shoddy construction technique by the operator! When this has been dealt with, we can try some OP32. 73 Joe On Fri, 7 Jun 2013, Markus Vester wrote: > Hi Joe, > > looks like carrier stability was good while the signal was weak, but deteriorated after 2 UT. DDS affected by QRO? > > Best 73, > Markus (DF6NM) > > > > From: jcraig@mun.ca > Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 1:34 AM > To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > Subject: Re: LF: 137.7770 kHz > > > Hi Stefan, Markus and Jean Pierre F1AFJ (Grabber service), > > Thanks for the report, Stefan. I am happy you have something nice to > say about my sigs. Its good that they are reaching you when we are so > close to the solstice. > > They were also quite strong around that time on Jean Pierre's grabber as > well. > > As for Markus, he provided what I asked for -- and now I must say his > very critical report is most gratefully received. :-) The problem seems to > have disappeared after the 10 MHz input to the AD9851 was boosted with > a BJT amp. The original interface simply offset the 1.5 V p/p > to 2.5V DC; the new one bosted it to 0-3V which is more in line with > the specs for the DDS. Perhaps the chirps and phase glitches were > due to RF interfering with the weak 10 MHz input. > > I will be happy to try OP32 on another frequency soon. > > Thank-you very much for the good news and thanks all around. > The TX is now again QRV on QRSS30. (2330 UTC) > > 73 > Joe > > This electronic communication is governed by the terms and conditions at http://www.mun.ca/cc/policies/electronic_communications_disclaimer_2012.php