Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-da03.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id CEBF0380000BD; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 09:12:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1SsCzG-0006WS-QN for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 14:11:18 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1SsCzG-0006WJ-Ai for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 14:11:18 +0100 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de ([129.206.100.212]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SsCzE-0007BT-Qe for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 14:11:17 +0100 Received: from freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.29.204]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id q6KDBFs4008283 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:11:16 +0200 Received: from [129.206.22.206] (pc206.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.22.206]) by freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.11.20060308/8.11.2) with ESMTP id q6KDBFXj002563 for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:11:15 +0200 Message-ID: <5009586B.2030501@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:08:59 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Stefan_Sch=E4fer?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <3CB7C9E00B7F4775905AE4E319341792@AGB>, , <5008A968.8050305@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <50092CAE.13738.1DE4D5@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com> In-Reply-To: <50092CAE.13738.1DE4D5@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com> X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) 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: Hello Mike, Am 20.07.2012 11:02, schrieb Mike Dennison: > Op8 is very similar to QRSS3 in effectiveness, except that you can > interpret an 'M' signal when Opera cannot. > LOL. Yes, it obviously looks like that. Anyway, nice game with all the features i must admit. [...] Content analysis details: (-0.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [129.206.100.212 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: 4e3b1488273adbbe9757d6bdd5adf219 Subject: Re: LF: Copied G3XDV Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 0:2:458721856:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d404b5009593554ac X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Hello Mike, Am 20.07.2012 11:02, schrieb Mike Dennison: > Op8 is very similar to QRSS3 in effectiveness, except that you can > interpret an 'M' signal when Opera cannot. > LOL. Yes, it obviously looks like that. Anyway, nice game with all the features i must admit. > > I got two decodes at marginal level, which I would expect as > Op8=QRSS3, and my QRSS120 has been received well at times with > Haldor. > > I have been saying for years that we may be going wrong by aiming for > slower and slower modes on LF (not VLF which is different), because > the QSB destroys the gain of the narrower bandwidth. Agreed. Anyway the 424 uHz tests by DF6NM, 4X1RF and some US stns have been positive and interesting. It's always the question if you want a QSO or a full callsign to be copied or just leaving a faint trace... > Instead, it may > be useful to exploit short-term peaks at faster speeds. It is, of > course, a compromise between speed.and signa/noise. > Yes, or instead rising the power. At least by this level the average local QRM caused by all the electronic stuff (whose manufacturers do not at all care about radio amateurs!) rises the noise background over the years! 73, Stefan