Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dk03.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id C7E70380000AE; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:27:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TBTHT-0000Zv-1o for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:25:43 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TBTHS-0000Zm-KW for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:25:42 +0100 Received: from smtpout5.wanadoo.co.uk ([80.12.242.80] helo=smtpout.wanadoo.co.uk) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TBTHQ-0001jS-AX for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:25:41 +0100 Received: from AGB ([2.26.46.80]) by mwinf5d66 with ME id xsRc1j00H1jnmGa03sRchm; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 18:25:39 +0200 Message-ID: From: "Graham" To: References: <504E0AD2.7020205@freenet.de> <001b01cd8f77$a9b4a1c0$0501a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <504E733E.5000208@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> In-Reply-To: <504E733E.5000208@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:25:36 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) 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: ''It's a pity that there is no slow-''WSPR'' And a even bigger pity, very few stations would be able to transmit it ! HF wspr and OP 2 modes are broadly similar , remembering , wspr is a peak recoding system and Op is averaging system so comparison over a radio path leads to a version of 'Pilot Vertigo' where the real and the imaginary tend to merge . Yes on paper such should be correct , but in this case , that has yet to be realised :) [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [80.12.242.80 listed in list.dnswl.org] X-Scan-Signature: 1c38f63d01970a2bf149f660c9cb2a37 Subject: Re: LF: slow WSPR? Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=response 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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=MISSING_OUTLOOK_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-sid: 3039ac1db407504f666751ec X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none ''It's a pity that there is no slow-''WSPR'' And a even bigger pity, very few stations would be able to transmit it ! HF wspr and OP 2 modes are broadly similar , remembering , wspr is a peak recoding system and Op is averaging system so comparison over a radio path leads to a version of 'Pilot Vertigo' where the real and the imaginary tend to merge . Yes on paper such should be correct , but in this case , that has yet to be realised :) But .... At last there is some active development for low noise modes again ... ! G... -------------------------------------------------- From: "Stefan Schäfer" Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 12:09 AM To: Cc: "Edgar J Twining" Subject: LF: slow WSPR? > It's a pity that there is no slow-WSPR, e.g. needing 32 minutes or so. If > WSPR (2 minutes FSK) is about as efficient as OP8 ( i heared so), then it > should be a real alternative to the slow DX modes on LF but not on MF! > > There is a software that plays recorded audio files in a faster mode, so > that QRSS becomes audible. VE2IQ has reported to me last year about it but > i don't remember the name. > > Would it be possible to make our own slow WSPR by using that software and > playing a 32 minute manipulated WSPR at 16x speed, feeding it to the > normal WSPR rx software? The slower code could be generated outside the > program. Would that be a useful test or do i miss something? > > 73, Stefan/DK7FC > > Am 10.09.2012 19:26, schrieb Graham: >> May be Mal >> >> But once again Jim has the answer to this problem ..if you can >> find his articles after Google trashed the uk500khz news group , >> >> I think Jose R predicts a 6 dB gain by changing to PSK from the >> Opera on/off keying but that would prevent most of the LH/MF >> usage >> >> G.. >> >