Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mi02.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 9D630380000AA; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:58:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TZ1on-0001SG-VE for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:57:29 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TZ1on-0001S7-HU for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:57:29 +0000 Received: from out1.ip02ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.238]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TZ1ol-0006KV-94 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:57:28 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AsABAH3xpFBcGSxu/2dsb2JhbAANN8RgAoINAQEBAQM4EUALCQsECRYPCQMCAQIBRRMIAQGIEqh+k1GMMYMFgycDlXyTMg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.83,257,1352073600"; d="scan'208";a="409586596" Received: from host-92-25-44-110.as13285.net (HELO [192.168.2.3]) ([92.25.44.110]) by out1.ip02ir2.opaltelecom.net with ESMTP; 15 Nov 2012 15:57:25 +0000 Message-ID: <50A510FE.4000305@psk31.plus.com> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:57:50 +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: <50A39DC2.6050703@psk31.plus.com> <50A39E57.3070006@psk31.plus.com> <50A50963.70307@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <50A50963.70307@gmx.net> 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: Thanks Tobias That is most interesting. there should be 3 that decoded fine and 2 that failed it seems that my human error selected 2 wrong files which leaves 2 that should have been OK and the last one which shows 1.142 sec time shift which was a non decode. [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- X-Scan-Signature: 0317e2ac8ed27149e57223a21580246d Subject: Re: LF: Fwd: JT9-2 failed now JT9-1 500khz + 1400hz 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: 3039ac1d7b8a50a5112420a8 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Thanks Tobias That is most interesting. there should be 3 that decoded fine and 2 that failed it seems that my human error selected 2 wrong files which leaves 2 that should have been OK and the last one which shows 1.142 sec time shift which was a non decode. There should be no timing problems at all unless they are introduced within the software,my computer times are spot on and do not vary during the short test periods, the fail always comes after 5,6, or 7 TX RX periods then remains. Hmm. 73 Eddie On 15/11/2012 15:25, Tobias DG3LV wrote: > Hello Eddie ! > > Those files, that do not decode directly in WSJT-X, could be decoded > if replayed with a (round about) -1 second timeshift. Using the > "audacity"-program as a (time-shifted-) tone source WSJT-X (rev 2717) > did decode 1244, 1248, 1252 files correctly : > 1340 10 18 -0.3 1408.93 0.00 G3ZJO TEST > (UTC is time of replay) > > (Files 1246 and 1250 were almost "silence", i.e. no JT9 tones.) > > The JT9-tones start at : > 1244: 1.096 sec > 1248: 1.080 sec > 1252: 1.142 sec > after the begin of the file. > > Maybe this helps locating the problem. > > 73 de dg3lv Tobias > > Am 14.11.2012 14:36, schrieb g3zjo: >> >> The usual happened to my local de-codes 6 or 7 transmit periods and they >> fail to de-code. >> >> Transmitter drift is noted as less than 0.75Hz in a 4minute RX - TX >> period. After 7 decodes they failed, I assume the drift becomes more >> rapid than the tolerance level over time. >> >> The files are, 3 before 2 after de-code fail :- >> >> https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D0881137_61669144_98927 >> https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D0881137_61669144_98929 >> https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D0881137_61669144_98921 >> https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D0881137_61669144_98923 >> https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D0881137_61669144_98066 >> >> Eddie >> >> >> > > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2441/5395 - Release Date: 11/14/12 > >