Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mp06.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 5CA6438000096; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 10:14:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TSTc3-0002XR-J4 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 14:13:15 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TSTc3-0002XI-53 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 14:13:15 +0000 Received: from out1.ip07ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.243]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TSTc1-0000jG-D9 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 14:13:14 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AocUAME8jVBOk8jd/2dsb2JhbABEika3DgEDgQaBCYIZBQEBBAEIAQEDSQImBgEBAwUCAQMRBAEBAQklFAEEGgYWCAYTCgECAgEBh28KuxyLdWEqI4ILgyQDiCSFSphIgm8 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,665,1344207600"; d="scan'208";a="51929495" Received: from host-78-147-200-221.as13285.net (HELO xphd97xgq27nyf) ([78.147.200.221]) by out1.ip07ir2.opaltelecom.net with SMTP; 28 Oct 2012 14:13:12 +0000 Message-ID: <006501cdb516$5d1a3900$0501a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> From: "mal hamilton" To: References: <000a01cdb507$101bd370$0501a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <003101cdb50d$a59685c0$0501a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <508D386C.60605@princeton.edu> Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 14:13:11 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Score: 3.8 (+++) 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 Joe The signals were good on the waterfall with me. I did not save any of the data since I was just experimenting. of course the problem could have been at the TX end. Any data modes that I have looked at before are always good signals with me because of my antenna system but they likewise do not always decode, whereas had they been on CW or QRSS I could easily have identified them. Others have made the same observations for all data modes and it remains unexplained. I have never needed to try to decode signals at the levels of strength claimed(very weak) because I have large antennas and signals are always strong from those that indicate that they are active on LF/MF. I am discounting one or two operators that are so QRP that they do not radiate beyond their back yard so I do not look out for them. I appreciate your effort but so far I have managed very well over the years on CW and QRSS at the faster speeds ie QRSS 3 - 20 I do not have a TX converter for data modes otherwise I would try QSO mode but not interested in Beacons. [...] Content analysis details: (3.8 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 3.8 AXB_XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_024C2 AXB_XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_024C2 X-Scan-Signature: fc152e7304849b9a177649b85aea9f41 Subject: Re: LF: Re: wsjtx Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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: 3039ac1dc14a508d3daa313b X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Hi Joe The signals were good on the waterfall with me. I did not save any of the data since I was just experimenting. of course the problem could have been at the TX end. Any data modes that I have looked at before are always good signals with me because of my antenna system but they likewise do not always decode, whereas had they been on CW or QRSS I could easily have identified them. Others have made the same observations for all data modes and it remains unexplained. I have never needed to try to decode signals at the levels of strength claimed(very weak) because I have large antennas and signals are always strong from those that indicate that they are active on LF/MF. I am discounting one or two operators that are so QRP that they do not radiate beyond their back yard so I do not look out for them. I appreciate your effort but so far I have managed very well over the years on CW and QRSS at the faster speeds ie QRSS 3 - 20 I do not have a TX converter for data modes otherwise I would try QSO mode but not interested in Beacons. 73 es GL de Mal/G3KEV ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Taylor" To: Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 1:51 PM Subject: Re: LF: Re: wsjtx > Hi Mal and all, > > G3KEV wrote: > > Still no decode on 501.5 Khz but good waterfall display. Pity it > > was not CW or QRSS then I could get an ID > > JT9 signals should decode at signal levels well below what you can copy > on CW or QRSS -- and with much larger information content. > > If you believe you have examples of JT9 receptions that "should" have > decoded, but did not, please send me the *.wav files. (You must have > checked "Save All" on the WSJT-X "Save" menu.) > > -- 73, Joe, K1JT >