Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dd01.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id DFF67380001A1; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 11:20:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TSUe6-0003YU-Au for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 15:19:26 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TSUe5-0003YL-Ti for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 15:19:25 +0000 Received: from ppa01.princeton.edu ([128.112.128.213]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TSUe3-0001Aq-Vn for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 15:19:24 +0000 Received: from csgsmtp200l.Princeton.EDU (csgsmtp200l.Princeton.EDU [128.112.130.131]) by ppa01.Princeton.EDU (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q9SFJMbI007915 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 11:19:22 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.3] (pool-173-61-149-45.cmdnnj.fios.verizon.net [173.61.149.45]) (authenticated bits=0) by csgsmtp200l.Princeton.EDU (8.13.8/8.12.9) with ESMTP id q9SFJLlY014015 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 11:19:22 -0400 Message-ID: <508D4CF9.7070402@princeton.edu> Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 11:19:21 -0400 From: Joe Taylor User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <000a01cdb507$101bd370$0501a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <003101cdb50d$a59685c0$0501a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <508D386C.60605@princeton.edu> <006501cdb516$5d1a3900$0501a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> In-Reply-To: <006501cdb516$5d1a3900$0501a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.7.7855,1.0.431,0.0.0000 definitions=2012-10-28_04:2012-10-26,2012-10-28,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=quarantine_notspam policy=quarantine score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=1 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=6.0.2-1203120001 definitions=main-1210280150 X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) 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 Mal and all, G3KEV wrote: > 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. OK. The problem could also be at the Rx end, or it could be a fault in the decoder. If you save the data, we can find out which. Otherwise, we will be no wiser. [...] Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust [128.112.128.213 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.6 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: 87966b345956c8ef3389b993f6a18f4e Subject: Re: LF: Re: wsjtx Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; 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: 3039ac1d408d508d4d235bee X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Hi Mal and all, G3KEV wrote: > 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. OK. The problem could also be at the Rx end, or it could be a fault in the decoder. If you save the data, we can find out which. Otherwise, we will be no wiser. > 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. JT9 is a weak signal mode. Of course, any of us who always receive strong signals are better off making QSOs with a general-purpose mode such as good-old-CW. -- 73, Joe, K1JT