Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-df04.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id DB61238000082; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:15:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TZ6li-0003Yf-Mv for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:14:38 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TZ6li-0003YW-7z for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:14:38 +0000 Received: from out1.ip04ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.240]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TZ6lg-00083B-5H for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:14:37 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag8CABRapVBcHvk5/2dsb2JhbAANN8NZAQGCDQEBAQEDOBEwEAsJCwQJJQ8CRgYNAQUCAQGHdwOpVZNRi0hphiwDlXyTMg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.83,259,1352073600"; d="scan'208";a="390961047" Received: from host-92-30-249-57.as13285.net (HELO [192.168.2.3]) ([92.30.249.57]) by out1.ip04ir2.opaltelecom.net with ESMTP; 15 Nov 2012 21:14:34 +0000 Message-ID: <50A55B3C.70704@psk31.plus.com> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:14:36 +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: Rik Strobbe CC: Tobias DG3LV , rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB56BEE@ICTS-S-MBX5.luna.kuleuven.be>,<50A549B1.6070405@gmx.de> <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB56C5A@ICTS-S-MBX5.luna.kuleuven.be> In-Reply-To: <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB56C5A@ICTS-S-MBX5.luna.kuleuven.be> 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 to all for the reports. Now here are my de-codes of your signal Rik. The WSJTX displayed time on the GUI is perfect as is the Computer time, just look at the UTC in the reports. I think there is a slight timing error somewhere within the software, not noticed until I had signals to decode.:-) [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- X-Scan-Signature: ebba021850e0a5d4120636e52401e975 Subject: Re: LF: JT9-1 test on 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=LINES_OF_YELLING 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: 3039ac1d40d850a55b6c25e7 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Thanks to all for the reports. Now here are my de-codes of your signal Rik. The WSJTX displayed time on the GUI is perfect as is the Computer time, just look at the UTC in the reports. I think there is a slight timing error somewhere within the software, not noticed until I had signals to decode.:-) 1657 4 -30 -1.0 1419. 0.0 1657 5 -24 0.2 1404. 0.0 TEST OR7T JO2 1657 1 -20 0.2 1404. 0.0 OR7T TEST 1657 10 -31 0.2 1419. 0.0 1657 2 -29 2.0 1419. 0.0 1657 1 -23 0.2 1404. 0.0 OR7T TEST 1657 3 -21 0.2 1405. 0.0 1657 5 -29 1.3 1419. 0.0 1657 10 -29 -2.2 1419. 0.0 1657 9 -28 2.3 1419. 0.0 1657 10 -28 0.7 1419. 0.0 1657 5 -28 2.3 1419. 0.0 1657 8 -20 0.2 1405. 0.0 1657 2 -29 -1.5 1419. 0.0 1657 0 -30 2.0 1419. 0.0 1657 1 -29 2.1 1419. 0.0 1657 0 -30 -1.2 1419. 0.0 1657 10 -21 0.1 1405. 0.0 1657 5 -23 0.1 1405. 0.0 1657 3 -21 0.1 1405. 0.0 1657 9 -22 0.1 1404. 0.0 OR7T TEST 1657 3 -31 -0.9 1419. 0.0 1657 4 -17 0.2 1404. 0.0 OR7T TEST 1657 10 -29 -1.8 1419. 0.0 1657 2 -22 0.1 1404. 0.0 OR7T TEST 1657 9 -30 -1.2 1419. 0.0 1657 3 -20 0.2 1404. 0.0 OR7T TEST 1657 10 -21 0.2 1404. 0.0 OR7T TEST 1657 6 -23 0.3 1404. 0.0 OR7T TEST 1657 10 -19 0.2 1404. 0.0 OR7T TEST 1657 1 -30 -2.4 1419. 0.0 1657 2 -27 0.2 1404. 0.0 OR7T TEST 1657 3 -31 0.8 1419. 0.0 1657 0 -29 0.8 1420. 0.0 73 Eddie On 15/11/2012 21:05, Rik Strobbe wrote: > Hello Tobias, > > thanks for the report. > The SNR values are indeed strange with v0.4. > > 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T > > ________________________________________ > Van: Tobias DG3LV [dg3lv@gmx.de] > Verzonden: donderdag 15 november 2012 20:59 > To: Rik Strobbe; g3zjo > Onderwerp: Re: LF: JT9-1 test on 500khz + 1400hz > > Hi Eddie, Hi Rik ! > > reports : > 1951 2 13 0.4 1406. 0.0 TEST OR7T JO2 > 1952 3 5 0.6 1418. 0.0 > 1953 10 23 0.3 1406. 0.0 OR7T TEST > 1954 10 16 0.5 1418. 0.0 G3ZJO TEST > 1955 10 16 0.5 1406. 0.0 OR7T TEST > > running WSJT-X rev 2731, is this ok that there are no negative SNRs? > > 73 de dg3lv Tobias > > Am 15.11.2012 20:14, schrieb Rik Strobbe: >> Dear all, >> >> Eddie, G3ZJO, and I are going to have a JT9-1 test this evening between 20:00 and 21:00 UTC. >> The goal (at my side) is to compare WSJT-X v0.03 and v0.04. >> Eddie will transmit the even minutes and I will take the odd minutes. >> Frequency: 500kHz dial and 1400Hz audio (so 501.4kHz TX frequency). >> All reports are welcome. >> >> 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T >> > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2441/5396 - Release Date: 11/15/12 > > >