Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5474 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2001 17:20:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO warrior-inbound.servers.plus.net) (212.159.14.227) by extortion.plus.net with SMTP; 19 Feb 2001 17:20:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 25947 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2001 17:20:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by warrior with SMTP; 19 Feb 2001 17:20:21 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.16 #2) id 14UtuK-0007lg-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 17:15:28 +0000 Received: from imo-r07.mx.aol.com ([152.163.225.7]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #2) id 14UtuJ-0007lC-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 17:15:27 +0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Received: from WarmSpgs@aol.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id l.87.71459d1 (3966) for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:14:21 -0500 (EST) From: WarmSpgs@aol.com Message-ID: <87.71459d1.27c2ae6c@aol.com> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:14:20 EST Subject: Re: LF: Slower and slower To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 120 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: In a message dated 2/19/01 12:12:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.ac.be writes: << Using DFCW instead of QRSS will reduce the QSO time to abt. 1/3 and the required stability to 1/2 (0.02ppm). More sophisticated methods (FDK etc..) might even give better results. >> I wonder...was Andy's analysis confusing DFCW with FDK?