Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-md06.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 9515F38000082; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 08:43:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TC8kG-0003Kr-K6 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 13:42:12 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TC8kG-0003Ki-7j for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 13:42:12 +0100 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de ([129.206.210.211]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TC8kE-0007Xc-Gs for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 13:42:11 +0100 Received: from freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.29.204]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q8DCg9RX017216 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 14:42:10 +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 q8DCg8mq030517 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 14:42:08 +0200 Message-ID: <5051D3DD.7010407@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 14:38:53 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?U3RlZmFuIFNjaMOkZmVy?= 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: <66C690FA65054015B54D3DC3A6699556@AGB> <8CF5F1C3F556E0D-1A4C-500CE@webmail-d006.sysops.aol.com> <5050D7C3.2010005@legal-medicine.de> In-Reply-To: <5050D7C3.2010005@legal-medicine.de> X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) 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: OK... Edgar from Tasmania passed me to this webpage http://www.qsl.net/zl1bpu/CMSK/cmsk.htm showing the CMSK mode. Probably well knows by the old experts :-) So what about that mode for very weak signal modes on LF? Pros and Cons? Is this woth to try above 10000 km distance? [...] Content analysis details: (-2.8 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust [129.206.210.211 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.5 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: 5c1f37c04fc013ebbc2288fd3791d043 Subject: LF: CMSK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; 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: 3039ac1d605a5051d4e64320 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none OK... Edgar from Tasmania passed me to this webpage http://www.qsl.net/zl1bpu/CMSK/cmsk.htm showing the CMSK mode. Probably well knows by the old experts :-) So what about that mode for very weak signal modes on LF? Pros and Cons? Is this woth to try above 10000 km distance? 73, Stefan/DK7FC Am 12.09.2012 20:43, schrieb pws: > Hi, > > Question: why do all those professional services for submarines > down at LF/VLF use MSK and not any kind of that advanced stuff > you are talking about? > > As far as I know they are using non-linear transmitters like my > cellphone does. > > Peter, df3lp >