Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mg02.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 7837438000090; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 12:56:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Ri8af-0003JJ-3M for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2012 17:56:01 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Ri8ae-0003JA-HG for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2012 17:56:00 +0000 Received: from mail-iy0-f171.google.com ([209.85.210.171]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Ri8ac-0003WT-1a for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2012 17:56:00 +0000 Received: by iagw33 with SMTP id w33so45414966iag.16 for ; Tue, 03 Jan 2012 09:55:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=M9xt6qp9ku3Q2yy9oGvim86iEXSTwDRuVXK2bA8wKDI=; b=d063LJtEgVrsplr69EXBGrnSSMFErfevIPad++t7NfUHIfP3eoyIx0dcqQwax05MNX oYEfYTQdng4b5QZ41t5SW7kLmrMC12SgIZt+KGiu6kfMraYeXtd8Pw1azZRSwTPtw5+l o92KXC2TM6mP7suV2MPz+7QBvWKXsS9gusVQc= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.43.131.196 with SMTP id hr4mr54366909icc.55.1325613351627; Tue, 03 Jan 2012 09:55:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.150.144 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 09:55:51 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4F033DF2.90107@usa.net> References: <780955996.1040888.1325583040480.JavaMail.fmail@mwmweb057> <4F033DF2.90107@usa.net> Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 17:55:51 +0000 Message-ID: From: Andy Talbot To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,none Subject: Re: LF: OPERA - why it's less data than normal CW ? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none 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: 0:2:448287904:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: mail_rly_antispam_dkim-m212.2 ; domain : gmail.com DKIM : pass x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d60ca4f0341665128 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Until I deleted every last trace of the software after discovering it was sending IP packets, I had started analysing the Tx sequence to see if it made any sense For any given sub-mode, the Tx slots are all equal length, so allocate a 0 and1 to each Tx state. If you do an autocorrelation on the resulting sequence, (by XORing a delayed version of the pattern with itself) some interesting longer sequences show up - always an even number of 1's' and 0's' for example. It almost has a vague Manchester Coding feel to it. But all analysis is stopped and will permanently stay so until a version appears that will not send IP packets. It was much easier to 'crack' WSJT coding - just a case of reading the source code :-) 'jnt On 3 January 2012 17:42, Alberto di Bene wrote: > On 1/3/2012 10:36 AM, Andy Talbot wrote: > > If 'someone' would publish the innards of that mode, a simple Tx only > keyer could surely be developed, and te mode woue be useful > > And maybe somebody could even adventure in writing an Rx program... > but of course the protocol needs to be completely open source for this. > > 73=A0 Alberto=A0 I2PHD > >