Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dc05.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id CD2B43800030F; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 05:16:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1QzPpU-0000iI-Kv for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2011 10:14:28 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1QzPpU-0000i9-6V for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2011 10:14:28 +0100 Received: from mail-vw0-f43.google.com ([209.85.212.43]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1QzPpS-0004Rs-Ne for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2011 10:14:28 +0100 Received: by vws10 with SMTP id 10so3482177vws.16 for ; Fri, 02 Sep 2011 02:14:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=ykdBIYqBRwU16GpjqMZ2/DPTGTVvpVLanSyI2xF7Um4=; b=xPukiWtKUGDgoFFYd2YdmmkTmOucB2pLDtEOXvvoxbokyjlGpaAQcDlrutoWG+sl4R gt0w3laQWE6langNv2uL7CRMkV++ix1mA1KE2rvlmmWfn6QQkqUEMJP0RQr0UzAOcsu0 GpeZ/0O+4xf+rosKLFe966bh2pJodIyC/jMmM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.192.6 with SMTP id do6mr242410vcb.7.1314954860527; Fri, 02 Sep 2011 02:14:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.192.70 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 02:14:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <001201cc6943$47f18e40$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> References: <001201cc6943$47f18e40$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 10:14:20 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: R8ElVHzbezHWt2ePr5wR4mez7Rw Message-ID: From: Gary - G4WGT To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 Subject: Re: LF: ROS Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba53b0d45b814204abf1c92b 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-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:473970368:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: mail_rly_antispam_dkim-d230.2 ; domain : gmail.com DKIM : fail x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d40854e609ed348d9 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none --90e6ba53b0d45b814204abf1c92b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Mal, MF, OK, I am pleased you tried ROS. Some of my decodes last night of John & Finbar were not even audible in the speaker or visible on the ROS waterfall or SpecLab. 73, Gary - G4WGT. On 2 September 2011 08:38, mal hamilton wrote: > ** > MF > My first encounter with ROS !! > After installation it seemed to run well but no signals for some time > although I could both see them and hear some of them on the waterfall. > I only got one good line strangely from the most distant station in the > Shetland Is, the rest I could not get a decode. > The programme crashed 3 times as well so I am not really impressed. I > cannot see that I was doing anything wrong since I did get one complete line > decode. It takes up a good bit of bandwidth although this is not a problem > since there is so little acty on 500. > > on the other hand WSPR never crashed when I used it for RX only, it does > not always decode either even when the signals are quite strong. > While it is interesting to experiment with different modes I still think > QRS at a suitable speed or DFCW is probably better especially for a QSO on > the lower frequencies like LF es MF > > 73 de Mal/G3KEV > > > > --90e6ba53b0d45b814204abf1c92b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mal, MF,

OK, I am pleased you tried ROS. Some of my deco= des last night of John & Finbar were not even audible in the speaker or= visible on the ROS waterfall or SpecLab.

73, Gary= - G4WGT.


On 2 September 2011 08:38, mal hami= lton <g3kevma= l@talktalk.net> wrote:
MF
My first encounter with ROS !!
After installation it seemed to run well but no s= ignals=20 for some time although I could both see them and hear some of them on the= =20 waterfall.
I only got one good line strangely from the most = distant=20 station in the Shetland Is, the rest I could not get a decode.
The programme crashed 3 times as well so I am not= really=20 impressed. I cannot see that I was doing anything wrong since I did get one= =20 complete line decode. It takes up a good bit of bandwidth although this is = not a=20 problem since there is so little acty on 500.
=A0
on the other hand WSPR never crashed when I used = it for RX=20 only, it does not always decode either even when the signals are quite stro= ng.=20
While it is interesting to experiment with differ= ent modes=20 I still think QRS at a suitable speed or DFCW is probably better especially= for=20 a QSO on the lower frequencies like LF es MF
=A0
73 de Mal/G3KEV
=A0
=A0
=A0

--90e6ba53b0d45b814204abf1c92b--