Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mi04.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 04F76380000CC; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:25:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TR9N8-0003fV-Oq for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 23:24:22 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TR9N8-0003fM-9K for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 23:24:22 +0100 Received: from smtpout1.wanadoo.co.uk ([80.12.242.29] helo=smtpout.wanadoo.co.uk) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TR9N6-00022i-Hm for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 23:24:21 +0100 Received: from AGB ([2.26.47.29]) by mwinf5d12 with ME id FAQK1k0090dmnFE03AQKVR; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 00:24:19 +0200 Message-ID: <3DD7F0DC19984F7CBF611D59430EEFA3@AGB> From: "Graham" To: References: <4084B089A7FF496CAC1CE9A2459B9C47@AGB> <7E9EB5FA653147298EEBB4676DCDD9DD@White> In-Reply-To: <7E9EB5FA653147298EEBB4676DCDD9DD@White> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 23:24:19 +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: 3.2 (+++) 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: What's you measured error ? ..taking one is peak and one is average and the beach mark is different as well, direct read-out testing is not satisfactory. Over a live radio path the statement is reasonably correct , op2 may on the + side and op4 on the - side I think the statement is technically correct, however , the differences in the calibration and method do present a technical quandary . [...] Content analysis details: (3.2 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [80.12.242.29 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 3.2 MANY_SPAN_IN_TEXT Many tags embedded within text X-Scan-Signature: ee37f4b261e58bbaf6a18fc5319c092e Subject: Re: LF: OPERA OPTICAL BEACON (way off topic) but is based on 17 KHz :) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0063_01CDB23E.B119B1A0" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=HTML_50_60,HTML_MESSAGE, 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: 3039ac1d7b8c50886aed2c9a X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0063_01CDB23E.B119B1A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable What's you measured error ? ..taking one is peak and one is = average and the beach mark is different as well, direct read-out = testing is not satisfactory. =20 Over a live radio path the statement is reasonably correct , op2 = may on the + side and op4 on the - side =20 I think the statement is technically correct, however , the = differences in the calibration and method do present a technical = quandary . Similar =3D having a resemblance in appearance, character, or = quantity, without being identical: In parallel transmission test over 25 miles on 500 k , the two = modes randomly decoded at and around the same level=20 However system implementation is the key , simplicity of use , with = minimal hardware requirements. as can be seen on the 136 band , = many stations are using the system with some very good results = , hopefully for field work with optical systems it will give a = reliable lap-top based SDR measuring system . =20 73 -G..=20 From: Markus Vester=20 Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 10:48 PM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Subject: Re: LF: OPERA OPTICAL BEACON (way off topic) but is based on 17 = KHz :) From: Graham=20 Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 11:18 PM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Subject: LF: OPERA OPTICAL BEACON (way off topic) but is based on 17 KHz = :) ... > and OP2 has similar sensitivity as the wspr system.=20 ... =20 this is definitely not true. 73, Markus ------=_NextPart_000_0063_01CDB23E.B119B1A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
What's  you  measured  error  ? ..taking =20 one  is  peak  and one  is  average  = and =20 the  beach mark is  different  as well, =  direct =20 read-out testing  is not  satisfactory. 
 
Over a live  radio  path  the  statement  = is=20 reasonably  correct  , op2  may  on the  + = side =20 and  op4  on the  - side 
I think the  statement is  technically  correct, = however ,=20 the  differences in the  calibration  and  = method =20 do  present  a  technical quandary .
 
Similar   =3D   having = a=20 resemblance in appearance, character, or quantity, without being = identical:
 
In parallel  transmission test  = over =20 25  miles  on  500 k , the  two  modes =20 randomly  decoded at and  around the  same  level=20
 
However system implementation  is the = key =20 , simplicity  of use , with  minimal  hardware=20 requirements.  as can be  seen on the  136  band ,=20 many  stations  are  using  the  system = with =20 some  very  good  results , hopefully  = for =20 field   work  with  optical  systems  = it =20 will  give a reliable  lap-top based  SDR=20   measuring  system .  
 
73 -G..
 
 
 
 
 

From: Markus Vester
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 10:48 PM
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= =20
Subject: Re: LF: OPERA OPTICAL BEACON (way off topic) but is = based=20 on 17 KHz :)

From: Graham
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 11:18 PM
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= =20
Subject: LF: OPERA OPTICAL BEACON (way off topic) but is = based on 17=20 KHz :)

...

> and OP2 =20 has  similar  sensitivity as  the  wspr  system.

...

 

this is definitely not = true.
 
73, Markus
------=_NextPart_000_0063_01CDB23E.B119B1A0--