Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dd06.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id A7B1438000098; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 09:49:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1SlKVv-0004ry-EF for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 01 Jul 2012 14:48:35 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1SlKVu-0004rp-OX for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 01 Jul 2012 14:48:34 +0100 Received: from qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.32]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SlKVs-00045S-GY for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 01 Jul 2012 14:48:33 +0100 Received: from omta23.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.74]) by qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id V1hH1j0011c6gX8531oY0P; Sun, 01 Jul 2012 13:48:32 +0000 Received: from dell5 ([71.234.119.9]) by omta23.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id V1oT1j0040CFS1j3j1oTwo; Sun, 01 Jul 2012 13:48:27 +0000 Message-ID: <000e01cd5790$32c5e6b0$8301a8c0@dell5> From: To: References: <001401cd5789$8dce5c60$8d01a8c0@JAYDELL> <4FF04B5A.1020806@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 09:48:29 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) 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: Stefan Noise appeared to be lower by about 3 dB during the second session ... and there always seems to be a couple dB QSB on SAQs signal strength over 5 - 10's of minutes. When the combination works out to be favorable I get 'decent' copy ... and light or nil copy when not. So really it is a combination of both. One might expect to get better reception during the winter test but that has not necessarily been my experience over many years. [...] Content analysis details: (-0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [76.96.62.32 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (jrusgrove[at]comcast.net) -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 AXB_XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_4379D AXB_XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_4379D X-Scan-Signature: a6b6ffaf48fdddf1ed5c25dc4bf03ee1 Subject: Re: LF: SAQ reception in CT Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME 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: 0:2:478859136:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d40924ff0557973c1 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Stefan Noise appeared to be lower by about 3 dB during the second session ... and there always seems to be a couple dB QSB on SAQs signal strength over 5 - 10's of minutes. When the combination works out to be favorable I get 'decent' copy ... and light or nil copy when not. So really it is a combination of both. One might expect to get better reception during the winter test but that has not necessarily been my experience over many years. Jay W1VD WD2XNS WE2XGR/2 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefan Schäfer" To: Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2012 9:06 AM Subject: Re: LF: SAQ reception in CT > Hi Jay, > > Interesting. Were the signal levels higher in the afternoon? Or was the > noise lower? Or even both? > > 73, Stefan/DK7FC > > Am 01.07.2012 15:00, schrieb jrusgrove@comcast.net: >> Reception of July 1, 2012 1200 UTC session was better than the 0900 UTC >> although not as good as 'all time' best reception of SAQ during the 2nd >> session of the July 2011 event. >> >> MP3 from this morning's 2nd session pre message 'test and tune' at : >> http://www.w1vd.com/SAQ070112.mp3 . >> >> Setup: modified AMRAD e probe > audio LNA > Delta 44 sound card > >> Spectrum Laboratory software >> >> >> Jay W1VD WD2XNS WE2XGR/2 >