Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mk02.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 357A238000089; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 17:38:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TE5UM-0001y6-7E for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:37:50 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TE5UL-0001xx-D8 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:37:49 +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 1TE5UJ-0005LA-CG for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:37:48 +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 q8ILbkFB006064 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:37:46 +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 q8ILbXjo015754 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:37:33 +0200 Message-ID: <5058E8D4.9040105@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:34:12 +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: <2456f.59796ccc.3d8a3418@aol.com> <5058E1CA.3090201@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <17D145F3-B94B-4939-8CEC-3A8395E686B1@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <17D145F3-B94B-4939-8CEC-3A8395E686B1@gmail.com> 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: Hi Roger, LF, All my PCs are running a time server program. But the tool that generates the WSPR tones here is not affected by the time. I must use the WSPR program to generate WSPR-2 to correct the time difference permanently (in addition with the time server program). However it is just a pretest for the slower WSPR. Markus is already ready to go. Tomorrow we will try WSPR-8 and WSPR-32. [...] 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 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: e3d323418d60e0f7f0af176deb9f3e2b Subject: Re: LF: WSPR tests by DK7FC Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030909010302070700050804" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.7 required=5.0 tests=HTML_40_50,HTML_FONTCOLOR_BLUE, HTML_FONTCOLOR_UNSAFE,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR 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: 3039ac1d61865058e9e2415e X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030909010302070700050804 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de id q8ILbkFB006064 Hi Roger, LF, All my PCs are running a time server program. But the tool that=20 generates the WSPR tones here is not affected by the time. I must use=20 the WSPR program to generate WSPR-2 to correct the time difference=20 permanently (in addition with the time server program). However it is just a pretest for the slower WSPR. Markus is already=20 ready to go. Tomorrow we will try WSPR-8 and WSPR-32. Maybe someone of the TA stations wants to participate in the test,=20 generating an audio file that will be played at 4x and 16x speed? John=20 or Jay? 73, Stefan/DK7FC Am 18.09.2012 23:17, schrieb Roger Lapthorn: > Stefan, > > Maybe worth using a package like Atomic to ensure your PC time is in=20 > sync with time servers? I set mine to sync every few minutes so time=20 > is spot on for WSPR. > > 73s > Roger G3XBM > > -- Via my 2.4GHz transceiver -- > > On 18 Sep 2012, at 22:04, Stefan=20 > Sch=C3=A4fer > wrote: > >> Hi Klaus, and Marco/IK1HSS, >> >> Thanks for the feedback and reports. It looks like timing is critical=20 >> here. I don't know why the time delay is changing. Maybe it has to do=20 >> with the separate tool to generate WSPR-2 which has a fixed time=20 >> interval between the sequences. The PC i'm using is quite old maybe=20 >> there are small time delays that are accumulating... >> >> First results are looking fine though. For later regulat=20 >> transmissions i shall use the program, unless it is possible to=20 >> generate a 12450 Hz TX tone. For the RX, it is not possible to set=20 >> the audio BFO tone to 12500 Hz :-( Don't know why it seems to be such=20 >> a problem to add that possibility. SpecLab and VAC has to do the rest=20 >> of the work. OK, maybe i would need SpecLab anyway, to realise the=20 >> 2.5 kHz SSB filter... >> >> As long as some reports are coming in, the time delay cannot be to=20 >> high. However i think the displayed SNR suffers from this delay. >> >> 73, Stefan/DK7FC >> >> >> >> >> Am 18.09.2012 22:31, schrieb KKorn42@aol.com: >>> Stefan >>> you are getting better >>> 1946 -4 -1.8 0.137450 0 DK7FC JN49 30 >>> 1956 -4 -1.8 0.137450 0 DK7FC JN49 30 >>> 2006 -5 -1.1 0.137450 0 DK7FC JN49 30 >>> 2016 -3 -0.5 0.137450 0 DK7FC JN49 30 >>> Monitored with indoor loop. >>> Pse disregard the Frequ in last mail, didn't bother to switch as I=20 >>> am not uploading. >>> Hope that solves you decode problem? >>> >>> 73 >>> de >>> Klaus >>> DJ6LB >>> --------------030909010302070700050804 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de id q8ILbkFB006064 Hi Roger, LF,

All my PCs are running a time server program. But the tool that generates the WSPR tones here is not affected by the time. I must use the WSPR program to generate WSPR-2 to correct the time difference permanently (in addition with the time server program).
However it is just a pretest for the slower WSPR. Markus is already ready to go. Tomorrow we will try WSPR-8 and WSPR-32.

Maybe someone of the TA stations wants to participate in the test, generating an audio file that will be played at 4x and 16x speed?=C2=A0 J= ohn or Jay?

73, Stefan/DK7FC

Am 18.09.2012 23:17, schrieb Roger Lapthorn:
Stefan,

Maybe worth using a package like Atomic to ensure your PC time is in sync with time servers? I set mine to sync every few minutes so time is spot on for WSPR.=C2=A0

73s
Roger G3XBM

-- Via my 2.4GHz transceiver --

On 18 Sep 2012, at 22:04, Stefan Sch=C3=A4fer<Stefan.Schaefer@iu= p.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:

Hi Klaus, and Marco/IK1HSS,

Thanks for the feedback and reports. It looks like timing is critical here. I don't know why the time delay is changing. Maybe it has to do with the separate tool to generate WSPR-2 which has a fixed time interval between the sequences. The PC i'm using is quite old maybe there are small time delays that are accumulating...

First results are looking fine though. For later regulat transmissions i shall use the program, unless it is possible to generate a 12450 Hz TX tone. For the RX, it is not possible to set the audio BFO tone to 12500 Hz :-( Don't know why it seems to be such a problem to add that possibility. SpecLab and VAC has to do the rest of the work. OK, maybe i would need SpecLab anyway, to realise the 2.5 kHz SSB filter...

As long as some reports are coming in, the time delay cannot be to high. However i think the displayed SNR suffers from this delay.

73, Stefan/DK7FC




Am 18.09.2012 22:31, schrieb KKor= n42@aol.com:
Stefan
you are getting better
1946=C2=A0 -4 -1.8=C2=A0=C2=A0 0.13745= 0=C2=A0 0 DK7FC JN49 30
1956=C2=A0 -4 -1.8=C2=A0=C2=A0 0.137450=C2=A0 0 DK7FC JN49 30
2006=C2=A0 -5 -1.1=C2=A0=C2=A0 0.137450=C2=A0 0 DK7FC JN49 30
2016=C2=A0 -3 -0.5=C2=A0=C2=A0 0.137450=C2=A0 0 DK7FC JN49 30
=C2=A0
Monitored with indoor loop.
=C2=A0
Pse disregard the Frequ in last mail, didn't bother to switch as I am not uploading.
Hope that solves you decode problem?
73
de
Klaus
DJ6LB
=C2=A0
=C2=A0
--------------030909010302070700050804--