Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mh03.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 2C192380000BB; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 04:09:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TBLVv-0007f1-BT for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:08:07 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TBLVu-0007es-Sh for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:08:06 +0100 Received: from mail-wi0-f181.google.com ([209.85.212.181]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TBLVs-00042y-MU for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:08:05 +0100 Received: by wibhm2 with SMTP id hm2so184314wib.10 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 01:08:03 -0700 (PDT) X-DKIM-Result: Domain=gmail.com Result=Good and Known Domain DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:references:from:content-type:x-mailer:in-reply-to :message-id:date:to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=hRX82imeXHaKT/+ZxBdmSWLRIXjsOCAE0bxM59z5n7I=; b=KzsVQAlOiK2jiyALyPOyJ/t8qQU4QAgiA61ypcbUedRPT9r81wMFh8+ZNB0rm6a9VQ nirtuFt5WpNBJfO+TVNXwtAuY08EdvcGp5EexiphoZs5VJiGWo17a071LW2j/3kr/6wu jPDIyQsY71veP16TQdjvsmb+UQctZdCFZqQ1wYzO9PeKRvQn9rrtUUD0/rSeafToE4Oi cH6YoglO9VWYCFsV1D0Us8ulnjVV8r7rnYrdzb54EsOzQsPb4+xZJ/5rmhr07vAkTNpB QZcw8pciAwmYoUbgkTcdk6O/HRTsPOf9U3vXz/A9hDVc0/Qd4cUm3lBlKHs10EfQ40qd eb5Q== Received: by 10.180.81.193 with SMTP id c1mr23287258wiy.12.1347350883669; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 01:08:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.3] (cpc4-cmbg17-2-0-cust740.5-4.cable.virginmedia.com. [86.14.226.229]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ct3sm1449859wib.5.2012.09.11.01.08.01 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 11 Sep 2012 01:08:02 -0700 (PDT) References: <504E0AD2.7020205@freenet.de> <001b01cd8f77$a9b4a1c0$0501a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <504E733E.5000208@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> From: Roger Lapthorn X-Mailer: iPod Mail (9B206) In-Reply-To: <504E733E.5000208@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Message-Id: <0A4F2E3C-DCA3-4131-88B1-CD6C6440D91A@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:07:59 +0100 To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) 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: Stefan, Maybe it is worth approaching K1JT with a suggestion/request that a slower version of WSPR be created? It has been several years since WSPR was first released (2008) and there is a lot of sense in a version with even better S/N performance. WSPR still has better Internet database support than OPERA and is not "secret" in the way the latter is. [...] 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 [209.85.212.181 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (rogerlapthorn[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Scan-Signature: 3b8620872b19e25fb6f4dfaf1256edc3 Subject: Re: LF: slow WSPR? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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=TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL 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-AUTHENTICATION: mtain-mh03.r1000.mx.aol.com ; domain : gmail.com DKIM : pass x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d60d7504ef1c34878 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Stefan, Maybe it is worth approaching K1JT with a suggestion/request that a slower v= ersion of WSPR be created?=20 It has been several years since WSPR was first released (2008) and there is a= lot of sense in a version with even better S/N performance. WSPR still has b= etter Internet database support than OPERA and is not "secret" in the way th= e latter is.=20 73s Roger G3XBM -- Via my 2.4GHz transceiver -- On 11 Sep 2012, at 00:09, Stefan Sch=C3=A4fer wrote: > It's a pity that there is no slow-WSPR, e.g. needing 32 minutes or so. If W= SPR (2 minutes FSK) is about as efficient as OP8 ( i heared so), then it sho= uld be a real alternative to the slow DX modes on LF but not on MF! >=20 > There is a software that plays recorded audio files in a faster mode, so t= hat QRSS becomes audible. VE2IQ has reported to me last year about it but i d= on't remember the name. >=20 > Would it be possible to make our own slow WSPR by using that software and p= laying a 32 minute manipulated WSPR at 16x speed, feeding it to the normal W= SPR rx software? The slower code could be generated outside the program. Wou= ld that be a useful test or do i miss something? >=20 > 73, Stefan/DK7FC >=20 > Am 10.09.2012 19:26, schrieb Graham: >> May be Mal >>=20 >> But once again Jim has the answer to this problem ..if you can fin= d his articles after Google trashed the uk500khz news group , >>=20 >> I think Jose R predicts a 6 dB gain by changing to PSK from the O= pera on/off keying but that would prevent most of the LH/MF usage >>=20 >> G.. >>=20 >=20