Return-Path: Received: from rly-mg01.mx.aol.com (rly-mg01.mail.aol.com [172.20.83.107]) by air-mg09.mail.aol.com (v121_r4.4) with ESMTP id MAILINMG092-9f24984a2fd2b6; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:14:28 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-mg01.mx.aol.com (v121_r4.4) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINMG014-9f24984a2fd2b6; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:14:06 -0500 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1LTLHf-0007nC-4k for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 19:13:39 +0000 Received: from [193.82.59.130] (helo=relay2.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1LTLHe-0007n3-D8 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 19:13:38 +0000 Received: from mail-fx0-f13.google.com ([209.85.220.13]) by relay2.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1LTLHY-0006eE-Qv for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 19:13:38 +0000 Received: by fxm6 with SMTP id 6so953127fxm.4 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 11:13:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=Y43UJp38PJiwfPNqMZaB4H29NYuy5xuvlIMy+xrI0ks=; b=V0WJKFZzHzq0b1+blXKsbdUf9rXMKNb1qpPpUpvEbcZuEtW6JIk+Ivi6Ft3pN8XuJ/ ZPOb0xjlaTj1cYNEasPrSJpQKOXx3fN5hchJrRonXvq2E05yTZv8V+j1ck4tpmLnfrAB dty5yK+v41yAspQpJBResH3VrORCupeVLotCg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=lSWPmAo9QSqV4Aa/MsclcIanr6vjLxOW9LIaMomE8qATONkNQATmAu/4vpjwMu0Dhh lvwerH70SnGu8tjUBca+q+RzJbD50KQ5OYwJtix1yWAG+K9vqcKjh3huNigBjxjlR+q6 tsZGqBLefDhT/n0u6y2sDf+kkXPABvlO5zIfA= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.181.226.5 with SMTP id d5mr952251bkr.116.1233429206465; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 11:13:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 19:13:25 +0000 Message-ID: From: Andy Talbot To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org DomainKey-Status: good (testing) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,AWL=-0.000,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 Subject: Re: LF: Re: Anoterh WSPR timing error Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636c5a7b2b4fb630461cc1d88 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE 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-IP: 193.82.116.20 X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: mail_rly_antispam_dkim-d276.1 ; domain : googlemail.com DKIM : pass X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) --001636c5a7b2b4fb630461cc1d88 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit And he got a good decode both those two times, with the frequency reported as 870 in each case (odd minutes listed in the database, coz of high Dsec setting). Surely not two oddities, exactly cancelling, on two completely different machines. Andy G4JNT www.g4jnt.com 2009/1/31 James Moritz > 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: > Cc: > 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. >> >> > > --001636c5a7b2b4fb630461cc1d88 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
And he got a good decode both those two times, with the frequency repor= ted as 870 in each case (odd minutes listed in the database, coz of hig= h Dsec setting).  Surely not two oddities, exactly cancelling, on two c= ompletely different machines.

Andy  G4JNT
= www.g4jnt.com


2009/1/31 James Moritz <james.moritz@btopenworld.com= >
Dear Andy, LF Group,

Oddly=20= enough, at the time your e-mail arrived, I noticed on the WSPR display that=20= your signal frequency had jumped from  503869 to 503883 Hz. It stayed t= here for 2 frames (1838, 1840utc) and during that time it did not decode. Af= ter that, it reverted to normal frequency, and decoded normally. The other s= ignals 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 ----- Fr= om: "Andy Talbot" <andy.g4jnt@googlemail.com>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blackshe= ep.org>
Cc: <jfell@tesco.net= >
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 6:02 PM
Subject: LF: Anoterh= WSPR timing error


John, G0API, has been monitoring m= y QRP WSPR beacon most of the afternoon,
and getting the occasional decod= e at a S/N of -19dB, ie quite good.
However, he only manages a decode about one time in 10, randomly.  The<= br>frequency is usually reported as ....855 instead of the ...870 it should=20= be,
although once in a while, it reports 870 and gives a proper decode. &= nbsp; So it
looks as if he may have some sort of intermitetnt fault that affects
samp= ling rate.




--001636c5a7b2b4fb630461cc1d88--