Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dh02.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 1D475380000AA; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 13:45:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Sq66j-0004w2-E9 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 18:26:17 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Sq66i-0004vt-Rg for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 18:26:16 +0100 Received: from out1.ip07ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.243]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Sq66h-0008BX-Ag for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 18:26:15 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag4FAI2qAVBcHY0f/2dsb2JhbABFoiADlgWBCIIbFAEBA0kCIQsCCAIBBwEcOQEEGgYkHQECAgEBiAC6GJFCA4gWhTqXcYJf X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,585,1336345200"; d="scan'208,217";a="41935120" Received: from host-92-29-141-31.as13285.net (HELO xphd97xgq27nyf) ([92.29.141.31]) by out1.ip07ir2.opaltelecom.net with SMTP; 14 Jul 2012 18:26:13 +0100 Message-ID: <000a01cd61e5$c2da64b0$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> From: "mal hamilton" To: "rsgb" Cc: Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 17:26:10 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Score: 3.1 (+++) 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: LF/MF It seems to me if one has to use a Linear amp at 40% efficiency for some modes this is vy inefficient. Other modes like CW, QRS es Opera to some extent are far more efficient using class C,D,E at around 80 - 90 % efficient. Surprised that Opera QSO mode seems to be neglected. Beacon mode and QSL via Internet is not attractive, lots of radio amateurs do not have broad band and it is also getting away from amateur radio. Real time QSO'S are preferable from an amateur radio point of view ie CW, QRS and possibly OPERA in QSO mode. Unattended machine modes dependent on third party reporting is hardly amateur radio [...] Content analysis details: (3.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [62.24.128.243 listed in list.dnswl.org] 1.0 FSL_XM_419 Old OE version in X-Mailer only seen in 419 spam -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.4 FSL_UA FSL_UA 1.7 AXB_XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_024C2 AXB_XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_024C2 X-Scan-Signature: 9d01e9df836df8dd3868645661e1c1f7 Subject: LF: Linear v OTHERS Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01CD61E5.C27B06A0" 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: 0:2:321322144:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d41165001b0363590 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01CD61E5.C27B06A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable LF/MF It seems to me if one has to use a Linear amp at 40% efficiency for some = modes this is vy inefficient. Other modes like CW, QRS es Opera to some = extent are far more efficient using class C,D,E at around 80 - 90 % = efficient. Surprised that Opera QSO mode seems to be neglected.=20 Beacon mode and QSL via Internet is not attractive, lots of radio = amateurs do not have broad band and it is also getting away from amateur = radio.=20 Real time QSO'S are preferable from an amateur radio point of view ie = CW, QRS and possibly OPERA in QSO mode. Unattended machine modes dependent on third party reporting is hardly = amateur radio de g3kev ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01CD61E5.C27B06A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
LF/MF
It seems to me if one has to use a Linear amp at = 40%=20 efficiency for some modes this is vy inefficient. Other modes like = CW, QRS=20 es Opera to some extent are far more efficient using class C,D,E at = around 80 -=20 90 % efficient.
Surprised that Opera QSO mode seems to be = neglected.=20
Beacon mode and QSL via Internet is not = attractive, lots=20 of radio amateurs do not have broad band and it is also getting away = from=20 amateur radio.
Real time QSO'S are preferable from an amateur = radio point=20 of view ie CW, QRS and possibly OPERA in QSO mode.
Unattended machine modes dependent on third = party=20 reporting is hardly amateur radio
 
de g3kev
 
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01CD61E5.C27B06A0--