Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dl03.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 41D24380000B3; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:46:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TTHl9-00043t-32 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:45:59 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TTHl8-00043k-60 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:45:58 +0000 Received: from rhcavuit02.kulnet.kuleuven.be ([134.58.240.130] helo=cavuit02.kulnet.kuleuven.be) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TTHl4-0002uG-U1 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:45:57 +0000 X-KULeuven-Envelope-From: rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.be X-KULeuven-Scanned: Found to be clean X-KULeuven-ID: 3B3C3128089.A436A X-KULeuven-Information: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Received: from icts-p-smtps-1.cc.kuleuven.be (icts-p-smtps-1e.kulnet.kuleuven.be [134.58.240.33]) by cavuit02.kulnet.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B3C3128089; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 20:45:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from ICTS-S-HUB3.luna.kuleuven.be (icts-s-hub3.luna.kuleuven.be [10.112.9.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by icts-p-smtps-1.cc.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4225F4042; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 20:45:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from ICTS-S-MBX5.luna.kuleuven.be ([fe80::312b:f3bc:9c4:4ebb]) by ICTS-S-HUB3.luna.kuleuven.be ([fe80::a470:76b3:406d:2b1a%27]) with mapi id 14.02.0309.002; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 20:45:37 +0100 X-Kuleuven: This mail passed the K.U.Leuven mailcluster From: Rik Strobbe To: "rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk" , "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" Thread-Topic: [rsgb_lf_group] WSJT-X v0.2, r2706 Thread-Index: AQHNtsylGnRaJcQpKkuWl/fA2ktCGpfSPpBc Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:45:37 +0000 Message-ID: <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB51642@ICTS-S-MBX5.luna.kuleuven.be> References: <508D92BE.2040500@broadpark.no> <508ED047.1000504@broadpark.no> <508EEDA9.7070905@princeton.edu>,<50901CB0.2040405@princeton.edu> In-Reply-To: <50901CB0.2040405@princeton.edu> Accept-Language: nl-BE, en-US Content-Language: nl-BE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.112.13.13] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-HELO-Warning: Remote host 134.58.240.130 (rhcavuit02.kulnet.kuleuven.be) used invalid HELO/EHLO cavuit02.kulnet.kuleuven.be - verification failed X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) 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: Hello Joe, I hope things will be back to normal soon at the east coast. JT9 works fine here, whithin minutes of being QRV with JT9-2 on 500kHz I got a report from Norway (1045km) with just 1W RF power, good for about 5mW ERP. Impressive. [...] Content analysis details: (-1.4 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [134.58.240.130 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.7 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: a3fd3ca670e1dd908c2723cee298dee8 Subject: LF: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] WSJT-X v0.2, r2706 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB51642ICTSSMBX5lunaku_" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_40_50,HTML_MESSAGE 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: 3039ac1d4ad150902eac6c5e X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none --_000_7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB51642ICTSSMBX5lunaku_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Joe, I hope things will be back to normal soon at the east coast. JT9 works fine here, whithin minutes of being QRV with JT9-2 on 500kHz I go= t a report from Norway (1045km) with just 1W RF power, good for about 5mW E= RP. Impressive. The only odd thing I noticed is that even very strong signals never get a "= perport" better than -10dB. One question: I assume that WSJT-X can decode more than 1 signal in the sam= e timeframe, is that correct? 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T ________________________________ Van: rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk [rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk] name= ns Joe Taylor [joe@Princeton.EDU] Verzonden: dinsdag 30 oktober 2012 19:30 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk Onderwerp: [rsgb_lf_group] WSJT-X v0.2, r2706 Our big storm was as severe as expected. The two large cities closest to me, Philadelphia and New York, are basically shut down. I am without power at home, and will probably remain so for some days. I write this message from my Princeton University office. I have posted an installation file for WSJT-X revision 2706 on the WSJT web site. The link for direct download is http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/WSJTX_02r2706.exe Changes since r2702 include the following: 1. The problem with "ghost" signals is fixed. 2. A problem causing very long decode times under certain circumstances has been fixed. Please note: decode times on any recent PC should no more than a few seconds! 3. I have re-directed the program's fatal error messages so they will be sent to the command-prompt window from which you started the program. Please send me full reports on any such messages you observe, preferably with details on how to reproduce the problem. ######################################################################### Some additional information ... 1. Yes, the JT9 modes require good stability in all system oscillators. The present JT9 bdecoder does not attempt to track frequency drifts. Such capability will be added, however. We have been using digital modes for EME for nearly ten years now, at 144 MHz and higher. There are more than 1000 WSJT users on EME, using all kinds of rige. We have learned how to deal with reasonable rates of drift. Surely if we can do these things at VHF, we can do them much more easily at MF and LF. 2. If you're sure that you have seen degraded JT9 performance because of frequency stability issues, don't just complain on the LF reflector. Document your case and send me an example file with a drifting JT9 signal. Making WSJT-X and JT9 better is partly YOUR responsibility! 3. In other ways as well, test files are needed. I can make many tests myself, but I can't foresee all the problems others will have. That's what the "Save All" function is for! In these early tests, always run with "Save All" checked, just in case you will want to refer back to something that happened. You may want to send me the file in question. You can always clean out your "Save" directory by using "File | Delete all *.wav files in SaveDir". I need good examples of signals that fail to decode for any unknown reason. Also some good examples of atmospheric or other impulsive noise, for testing the noise blanker. 4. I have added a page of "Hints for New Users" to the online WSJT-X User's Guide, http://www.physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/WSJT-X_Users_Guide.pdf . Please read it! ... and let me know if you find other operational details of WSJT-X that need explanation. This will likely be especially true for those not already familiar with older versions of WSJT. 5. An operational suggestion: In many ways the different JT9 submodes are treated as distinct modes. If you receive a JT9-x signal in a different submode than the one you have selected, you won't decode it. For this reason, if JT9 is to become popular we'll probably need to choose one or two of the submodes for general use, and perhaps assign a narrow slice of the band to each one. Note that "message averaging" in the Rx software can make two or three JT9-2 transmissions as good as one JT9-5 transmission, with the advantage that you will copy sooner if signals are better than required for JT9-5. Message averaging is not yet present in the JT9 decoder... but in future it can be. Again, we have dealt with such issues very effectively on EME -- and can do so at MF/LF, for sure. 6. On the topic of CW, Beacons, WSPR, JT9, etc. I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. Surely there is room for everybody? Maybe I'm just too new here to understand? (Mal, is this mostly just a matter of "Mal being Mal"???) On the HF bands, the WSPR sub-band is just 200 Hz wide. If we did the same on 630 m, the WSPR sub-band would take up less than 3% of the 7 kHz band. If that's too much, we could cut it in half, or even less, and still have enough WSPR space. Moreover, a "slow WSPR", if warranted, would require even less bandwidth. Similar comments apply to JT9. The bandwidth of JT9 signals is significantly less than that of CW, for comparable information rates. There should be enough spectrum for both, even in our narrow MF and LF bands. 7. As for performance comparisons between JT9 and WSPR: WSPR is a mature program, and its decoder has been optimized and tweaked over a period approaching five years. You are playing with JT9 in infancy. With help (as opposed to simple complaints) from users, it will improve rapidly. That's all for today! Here's hoping that we get power restored before too long, and that other aspects of this weather disaster will in time be manageable. -- 73, Joe, K1JT __._,_.___ Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a= new topic Messages in this topic (3) Recent Activity: * New Members 2 Visit Your Group [Yahoo! Groups] Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest = =95 Unsubscribe =95 Terms of Use . __,_._,___ --_000_7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB51642ICTSSMBX5lunaku_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello Joe,

 

I hope things will be back to normal soon at the east coas= t.

JT9 works fi= ne here, whithin minutes of being QRV with JT9-2 on 50= 0kHz I got a report from Norway = (1045km) with just 1W RF= power, good for about 5mW = ERP. Impressive.

The only odd thing = I noticed is that even very strong=  signals never get a "perpo= rt" better than -10dB.

One question= : I assume that WSJT-X can&= nbsp;decode more than 1 signal in the s= ame timeframe, is that correct?

 

73, Rik  ON7YD - OR7T

 

 

Van: rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk [rsgb= _lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk] namens Joe Taylor [joe@Princeton.EDU]
Verzonden: dinsdag 30 oktober 2012 19:30
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk Onderwerp: [rsgb_lf_group] WSJT-X v0.2, r2706

 

Our big storm was as severe as expected. The two large cities closest to me, Philadelphia and New York, are basically shut down. I am without power at home, and will probably remain so for some days. I write this
message from my Princeton University office.

I have posted an installation file for WSJT-X revision 2706 on the WSJT web site. The link for direct download is

http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/WSJTX_02r2706.exe

Changes since r2702 include the following:

1. The problem with "ghost" signals is fixed.

2. A problem causing very long decode times under certain circumstances has been fixed. Please note: decode times on any recent PC should no
more than a few seconds!

3. I have re-directed the program's fatal error messages so they will be sent to the command-prompt window from which you started the program.
Please send me full reports on any such messages you observe, preferably with details on how to reproduce the problem.

#########################################################################
Some additional information ...

1. Yes, the JT9 modes require good stability in all system oscillators. The present JT9 bdecoder does not attempt to track frequency drifts.
Such capability will be added, however. We have been using digital
modes for EME for nearly ten years now, at 144 MHz and higher. There
are more than 1000 WSJT users on EME, using all kinds of rige. We have
learned how to deal with reasonable rates of drift. Surely if we can do these things at VHF, we can do them much more easily at MF and LF.

2. If you're sure that you have seen degraded JT9 performance because of frequency stability issues, don't just complain on the LF reflector.
Document your case and send me an example file with a drifting JT9
signal. Making WSJT-X and JT9 better is partly YOUR responsibility!

3. In other ways as well, test files are needed. I can make many tests
myself, but I can't foresee all the problems others will have. That's
what the "Save All" function is for! In these early tests, always= run
with "Save All" checked, just in case you will want to refer back= to
something that happened. You may want to send me the file in question.
You can always clean out your "Save" directory by using "Fil= e | Delete
all *.wav files in SaveDir". I need good examples of signals that fail=
to decode for any unknown reason. Also some good examples of
atmospheric or other impulsive noise, for testing the noise blanker.

4. I have added a page of "Hints for New Users" to the online WSJ= T-X
User's Guide,
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/WSJT-X_= Users_Guide.pdf .
Please read it! ... and let me know if you find other operational
details of WSJT-X that need explanation. This will likely be especially true for those not already familiar with older versions of WSJT.

5. An operational suggestion: In many ways the different JT9 submodes
are treated as distinct modes. If you receive a JT9-x signal in a
different submode than the one you have selected, you won't decode it.
For this reason, if JT9 is to become popular we'll probably need to
choose one or two of the submodes for general use, and perhaps assign a narrow slice of the band to each one. Note that "message averaging&quo= t; in
the Rx software can make two or three JT9-2 transmissions as good as one JT9-5 transmission, with the advantage that you will copy sooner if
signals are better than required for JT9-5. Message averaging is not
yet present in the JT9 decoder... but in future it can be. Again, we
have dealt with such issues very effectively on EME -- and can do so at MF/LF, for sure.

6. On the topic of CW, Beacons, WSPR, JT9, etc. I really don't
understand what all the fuss is about. Surely there is room for
everybody? Maybe I'm just too new here to understand? (Mal, is this
mostly just a matter of "Mal being Mal"???)

On the HF bands, the WSPR sub-band is just 200 Hz wide. If we did the
same on 630 m, the WSPR sub-band would take up less than 3% of the 7 kHz band. If that's too much, we could cut it in half, or even less, and
still have enough WSPR space. Moreover, a "slow WSPR", if warrant= ed,
would require even less bandwidth. Similar comments apply to JT9. The
bandwidth of JT9 signals is significantly less than that of CW, for
comparable information rates. There should be enough spectrum for both, even in our narrow MF and LF bands.

7. As for performance comparisons between JT9 and WSPR: WSPR is a mature program, and its decoder has been optimized and tweaked over a period
approaching five years. You are playing with JT9 in infancy. With help
(as opposed to simple complaints) from users, it will improve rapidly.

That's all for today! Here's hoping that we get power restored before
too long, and that other aspects of this weather disaster will in time
be manageable.

-- 73, Joe, K1JT

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.
 
__,_._,___
--_000_7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB51642ICTSSMBX5lunaku_--