Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dc04.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id B5D8B38000091; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:20:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TE3Kp-0000Qd-SA for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 20:19:51 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TE3Ko-0000QG-MM for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 20:19:50 +0100 Received: from out1.ip01ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.237]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TE3Kl-0004Ys-VK for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 20:19:49 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvQUAF/IWFBcHn1c/2dsb2JhbABFijexBAKBBIEJghsFAQEFCAEBAyUBIwIsAQEDBQIBAxEEAQEKJRQBBBoGFggGEwoBAgIBAYdzulaLG4FzG4RiA41liRKPDYJm X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,444,1344207600"; d="scan'208";a="404100503" Received: from host-92-30-125-92.as13285.net (HELO xphd97xgq27nyf) ([92.30.125.92]) by out1.ip01ir2.opaltelecom.net with SMTP; 18 Sep 2012 20:19:46 +0100 Message-ID: <001b01cd95d2$8ce06780$0501a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> From: "mal hamilton" To: References: <50589124.1040508@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <000701cd95b4$6bc8b520$0501a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <5058C28B.9060009@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 19:19:39 -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: 4.7 (++++) 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: Stefan The majority of my acty has been two way CW 137-137 and NOT XBAND. The only reason I had to work XBAND was because some stations had no licence for 137 and requested me to work xband also some operators had no 137 TX but listened on the band. No QRSS BEACON RUBBISH and QSL via Internet or Grabbers. These days most operators are in BEACON mode and do not work CW QSO MODE. that limits my CW activities. I must check my records sometime but last count was about 35 different countries worked, and quite a lot were GERMAN stations.in the early days Like I have said before many times I am only interested both on LF es MF in QSO mode and not repeative BEACONS either on CW or DATA If DX stations can hear/see my signal I would like a reply in real time and not via Internet or watch a Grabber. My logic is that if they can hear/see me then I will be able to hear/see them and this has been the case in the past. I am not interested in ONE WAY traffic. I will switch the LF TX on when there is someone available at the other end for a QSO. [...] Content analysis details: (4.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [62.24.128.237 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 1.1 FSL_UA FSL_UA 2.6 AXB_XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_024C2 AXB_XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_024C2 X-Scan-Signature: 17343f7e400f1005b5081acbd4115359 Subject: Re: LF: Re: WSPR tests by DK7FC Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" 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=0.0 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: 3039ac1d40845058c9807621 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Stefan The majority of my acty has been two way CW 137-137 and NOT XBAND. The only reason I had to work XBAND was because some stations had no licence for 137 and requested me to work xband also some operators had no 137 TX but listened on the band. No QRSS BEACON RUBBISH and QSL via Internet or Grabbers. These days most operators are in BEACON mode and do not work CW QSO MODE. that limits my CW activities. I must check my records sometime but last count was about 35 different countries worked, and quite a lot were GERMAN stations.in the early days Like I have said before many times I am only interested both on LF es MF in QSO mode and not repeative BEACONS either on CW or DATA If DX stations can hear/see my signal I would like a reply in real time and not via Internet or watch a Grabber. My logic is that if they can hear/see me then I will be able to hear/see them and this has been the case in the past. I am not interested in ONE WAY traffic. I will switch the LF TX on when there is someone available at the other end for a QSO. de mal/g3kev ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefan Schäfer" To: Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 6:50 PM Subject: Re: LF: Re: WSPR tests by DK7FC Hi Mal, When was your last 2-way CW QSO (137-137, not the 137-HF stuff) on 137 kHz? Who was the worked station? 73, Stefan Am 18.09.2012 17:43, schrieb mal hamilton: > Stefan > Faster speeds are BEST not slower > I am working on Fast Bursts of CW > I will have been on the frequency made a contact and gone before you get > started !! > > > Mal/G3KEV > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stefan Schäfer" > To: > Cc: "Joe Taylor"; "Edgar J Twining" > > Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 3:20 PM > Subject: LF: WSPR tests by DK7FC > > > >> Dear LF group, >> >> A few days we started a discussion about a slower WSPR here in the >> group. After that, i've been in contact with K1JT who meant he will work >> out a slower WSPR version for LF, in a few months (hopefully). >> >> Markus/DF6NM kindly prepared a tool to generate different types of WSPR. >> There are 3 versions. The first takes 2 minutes, i.e. the normal WSPR >> that can be decoded with the normal WSPR software. Then there are slower >> versions taking 8 and 32 minutes. >> >> We want to make some pre-tests to see the SNR improvement of a slower >> WSPR, i.e. check if it will be confirmed by the SNR display that WSPR-8 >> shows a 6 dB better SNR (12 dB SNR improvement for WSPR-32 respectively). >> >> Hopefully this will result in a new DX-mode on LF (Yes Mal, i know :-) ). >> >> So now i joined the WSPR group and start to do some test transmissions >> with the normal 2 minute WSPR code, using Markus' tool. The goal is to >> see if the tool works properly and what decode levels i can obtain in >> various distances. >> >> A 2 minute WSPR beacon is running here in Heidelberg / JN49IK, 50% TX >> time. I will run it until tomorrow 6 UTC. >> >> Reports apprechiated :-) >> >> Please can we try to move the LF reports/hour peak in the diagram above >> the level of the 20m band? ;-) >> >> Tests using the 8 and 32 minute WSPR will follow soon. >> >> 73, Stefan/DK7FC >> >> PS: TX pwr may be a bit reduced in first tests, abt. - 10 dB f.s. >> >> >