Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-da04.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id F146538000094; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 16:31:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TFWMA-0003eB-3X for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 21:31:18 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TFWM9-0003e2-Fe for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 21:31:17 +0100 Received: from mta31.charter.net ([216.33.127.82]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TFWM7-0008ML-Jo for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 21:31:16 +0100 Received: from imp11 ([10.20.200.11]) by mta31.charter.net (InterMail vM.8.01.05.02 201-2260-151-103-20110920) with ESMTP id <20120922203113.ZEHU24708.mta31.charter.net@imp11> for ; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 16:31:13 -0400 Received: from wt07 ([209.225.8.57]) by imp11 with smtp.charter.net id 2LXD1k0041Dq0wp05LXDb9; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 16:31:13 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=Mv9Cy8NsQItTEAHnXr6fCNbI23lcrkmyMeqLv9HU3yU= c=1 sm=1 a=3OCj7PonmP4A:10 a=cWQ9uGxeeyIA:10 a=gILNlAX-GZ8A:10 a=yUnIBFQkZM0A:10 a=PJeKqcLPtDZ6OT6dJGfeOA==:17 a=C5OVRGg26HaZNrph1ykA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=DL5patCEj2kXBP1Es-EA:9 a=BcwT0Smst7MCtTIIGOhIgQ==:117 Received: from [216.227.10.22] by enhanced.charter.net with HTTP; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 16:31:13 -0400 Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 16:31:13 -0400 (EDT) From: w1tag@charter.net To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Message-ID: <4d36feb1.4665aa.139efad427a.Webtop.47@charter.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Laszlo Mail 3 X-SID: 47 X-Originating-IP: [216.227.10.22] X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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: On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 8:11 PM, mal hamilton wrote: > I doubt if WSPR is as good as OPERA taking all things into consideration. WSPR needs Linear PA at 35% efficiency. < Why? It's an FSK, not a multi-tone system. What has to be preserved by a linear amplifier? [...] Content analysis details: (-0.5 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [216.33.127.82 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.5 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: 046f068074e745d5c60ca47deee9b503 Subject: Re: LF: Re: Experimental software for WSPR-8 and -32 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_15663023_1194323972.1348345873011" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_50_60,HTML_MESSAGE, 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-VSS-INFO: 5400.1158/84145 X-AOL-VSS-CODE: clean x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d404c505e203b1bfd X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none ------=_Part_15663023_1194323972.1348345873011 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 8:11 PM, mal hamilton wrote: > I doubt if WSPR is as good as OPERA taking all things into=20 consideration. WSPR needs Linear PA at 35% efficiency. < Why? It's an FSK, not a multi-tone system. What has to be preserved by a=20 linear amplifier? John, W1TAG =C2=A0 ------=_Part_15663023_1194323972.1348345873011 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 8:11 PM, mal hamilto= n wrote:

 > I doubt if WSPR is as good as OPERA taking all things into cons= ideration. WSPR needs Linear PA at 35% efficiency. <

Why? It's an FSK, not a mult= i-tone system. What has to be preserved by a linear amplifier?
=
John, W1TAG
=C2=A0
------=_Part_15663023_1194323972.1348345873011--