Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mi06.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id A212B380000A1; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 17:48:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TkjT1-0007eO-1Y for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:47:23 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TkjT0-0007eE-HW for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:47:22 +0000 Received: from ppa05.princeton.edu ([128.112.129.74]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TkjSy-0007CC-ND for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:47:21 +0000 Received: from csgsmtp200l.Princeton.EDU (csgsmtp200l.Princeton.EDU [128.112.130.131]) by ppa05.princeton.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qBHMlILt010898 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 17:47:18 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.3] (pool-96-235-189-92.cmdnnj.fios.verizon.net [96.235.189.92] (may be forged)) (authenticated authid=joe bits=0) by csgsmtp200l.Princeton.EDU (8.13.8/8.12.9) with ESMTP id qBHMlHlt023974 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 17:47:18 -0500 Message-ID: <50CFA0F5.1030506@princeton.edu> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 17:47:17 -0500 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: ,<50CE5A96.40902@broadpark.no> <50CE6BDB.6080008@gmx.net>,<50CF71CE.5090902@broadpark.no> In-Reply-To: X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.9.8327,1.0.431,0.0.0000 definitions=2012-12-17_05:2012-12-17,2012-12-17,1970-01-01 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=6.0.2-1211240000 definitions=main-1212170213 X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) 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 Laurence, Steinar, and all, On 12/17/2012 5:15 PM, Laurence KL1 X wrote: > Steinar I was getting some reasonable syncs but appeared not > stable enough - so that confirms it :-) Laurence KL 1 X LA5VNA wrote: >> Thanks Tobias. The conclusion is clear , my system in NOT stable enough >> when using JT9-10. Pity , but that's life ;( [...] Content analysis details: (-2.3 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust [128.112.129.74 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record X-Scan-Signature: e09cca6d8e44a91eadbdfb3e1b8aec09 Subject: Re: LF: JT9-10 @ 474 +1400 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: 3039ac1d7b8e50cfa1320ddf X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Hi Laurence, Steinar, and all, On 12/17/2012 5:15 PM, Laurence KL1 X wrote: > Steinar I was getting some reasonable syncs but appeared not > stable enough - so that confirms it :-) Laurence KL 1 X LA5VNA wrote: >> Thanks Tobias. The conclusion is clear , my system in NOT stable enough >> when using JT9-10. Pity , but that's life ;( Please send me an example of a JT9-10 file that seems like it should have decoded, but did not. NOBODY has yet done so. I am reasonably sure that small amounts of frequency drift can be detected and adequately compensated in software... but I can't do it without some typical examples. If you know it, it will help to have, along with the file, the message that was being transmitted. Note to all: I am presently working on a version or WSPR that will allow transmissions of length 10 (or 15?) and 30 minutes, with other features like the traditional WSPR. Sensitivity should be as good as the WSPR-8 and WSPR-32 tests made by Marcus (and others). -- 73, Joe, K!JT