Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-de01.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id E66B0380000C7; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:04:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1T4X3O-0002d1-E3 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 14:02:30 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1T4X3N-0002cs-NW for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 14:02:29 +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 1T4X3L-00071J-4t for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 14:02:28 +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 q7ND2NvD019752 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 15:02:24 +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 q7ND2Ntk004425 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 15:02:23 +0200 Message-ID: <50362932.4070008@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 14:59:30 +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: <43B234D4D2CD41D788AE84B43C97002C@AGB> <50317773.4050903@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <50317F3B.3040507@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <000601cd8120$5edf1ff0$6401a8c0@JAYDELL> In-Reply-To: <000601cd8120$5edf1ff0$6401a8c0@JAYDELL> X-Spam-Score: -0.9 (/) 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 Jay, Excellent! Thanks for watching! BTW the 14 mHz window is interesting too. It looks like a 14 mHz window is also suitable for QRSS-60/DFCW-90. But in some tests with low S/N signals i found no improvements reagrding readability. A nice test anyway. [...] Content analysis details: (-0.9 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] -0.2 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: e90dcb17768c7e768f13e0721cc1c0c7 Subject: Re: LF: T/A 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-sid: 3039ac1d40c950362a4031af X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Hello Jay, Excellent! Thanks for watching! BTW the 14 mHz window is interesting too. It looks like a 14 mHz window is also suitable for QRSS-60/DFCW-90. But in some tests with low S/N signals i found no improvements reagrding readability. A nice test anyway. When will you be on air again? 73, Stefan/DK7FC Am 23.08.2012 13:13, schrieb jrusgrove@comcast.net: > Stefan > > T/A conditions improving ... up to 20 dB s/n in 28 mHz last night. DST > at -20 nT and low to moderate static responsible for nice 'grabs' > overnight. > > http://www.w1vd.com/grabber.html > > Jay W1VD WD2XNS WE2XGR/2