Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dd02.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 0B835380000AC; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 07:06:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TTW6l-0001Ug-9q for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:05:15 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TTW6k-0001UX-Sn for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:05:14 +0000 Received: from out1.ip06ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.242]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TTW6j-0001mf-74 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:05:13 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApMBAGgFkVBcGSjp/2dsb2JhbAANN8cTAQEBAQIBOBE1BwQLCQgDAQEBAQkWDwkDAgECAT0IEwYCAQGHfKg7k0iLeIMXgyQDlXaTMQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,687,1344207600"; d="scan'208";a="555357064" Received: from host-92-25-40-233.as13285.net (HELO [192.168.2.3]) ([92.25.40.233]) by out1.ip06ir2.opaltelecom.net with ESMTP; 31 Oct 2012 11:05:12 +0000 Message-ID: <509105E9.1040908@psk31.plus.com> Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:05:13 +0000 From: g3zjo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <50904AD0.5070306@broadpark.no> <50904BB6.4010905@xs4all.nl> <50904E73.9030402@psk31.plus.com> <50904F8F.90505@xs4all.nl> <509056D9.2050107@psk31.plus.com> <002701cdb708$9435fd40$0501a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> In-Reply-To: <002701cdb708$9435fd40$0501a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> 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: Hi Mal I had a job to spot your comment referring to 15P6715P67WCV [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- X-Scan-Signature: 75bd9e83b9a4dd6aff3296cebc5bb885 Subject: Re: LF: PA0A log 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: 3039ac1d408e5091062f3dd4 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Hi Mal I had a job to spot your comment referring to 15P6715P67WCV > What does this mean. I am getting the same decode sometimes. It seems > consistant and must indicate something significient. > It looks like good DX if only we could understand it.:-) Eddie On 31/10/2012 01:39, mal hamilton wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "g3zjo" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 10:38 PM > Subject: Re: LF: PA0A log > > >> Thanks Albert >> >> Thought as much, that is the problem with a low signal, only some times >> you get me de-codeable. >> >> I will leave it for another day, and possibly get rid of these false >> de-codes, as below, copied from Steinar's post, I am getting them by the >> dozen on two XP RX/Computer set ups it could be related to the huge >> input signal levels which are even more uncontrollable on v 02r2706. >> Transmit audio levels are also far too high. >> >> Maybe 15P6715P67WCV means something I do get a few variations also. > What does this mean. I am getting the same decode sometimes. It seems > consistant and must indicate something significient. > >> 2138 10 -9 -0.4 1403.91 0.00 15P6715P67WCV >> >> 73 Eddie >> >> On 30/10/2012 22:07, Albert W wrote: >> >>> Eddie, >>> >>> Your signal is too weak at the moment, nothing to see in the waterfall. >>> >>> Albert >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> No virus found in this message. >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>> Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2441/5363 - Release Date: > 10/30/12 >>> >> > > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2441/5364 - Release Date: 10/30/12 > >