Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dk01.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 3F92A380000FD; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 19:31:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1U0i2l-0001KX-5K for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:30:19 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1U0i2k-0001KO-Lv for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:30:18 +0000 Received: from mail-we0-f180.google.com ([74.125.82.180]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1U0i2f-0004Rz-FM for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:30:17 +0000 Received: by mail-we0-f180.google.com with SMTP id k14so1639460wer.39 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:29:51 -0800 (PST) X-DKIM-Result: Domain=gmail.com Result=Good and Known Domain DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:subject:references:from:content-type:x-mailer :in-reply-to:message-id:date:to:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version; bh=SdZn93XWBtrqH8g01zoDgcHT3b9JsyACxgijouZtj7E=; b=Jq/57bJw8bsdKyU/0DoA8WegzoD39Lq6wFnP96fv/WWGdRbvBVwcV2KbFCMdtUhNTq arGoRd0rNdEqXmmVNfRlK3KNsw94iojB3kTe4PQb3hjK29nOFl5BL2R5EBD05/HspJAg 1EfeA1iudQshtlDYObEgO1cxZRYEo7EolC9vOi+PLJQ/Z0vBB6QCCKE6wFHiD7u4dzZ7 ra/tOzUHdedsES9hmxVO4l9eXCR9gZctO2ni9uBEDYL0fFpF6BRu1QaWbX4IVZcGH2qW cMy46gc6ZQ/6eMDsSUTBDXHePcIyVT+TRKi8oCJ7IaN53BX+zK9blXME2uoOaXd0RzBG qOOg== X-Received: by 10.194.235.225 with SMTP id up1mr12237738wjc.11.1359592191673; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:29:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.7] (cpc4-cmbg17-2-0-cust740.5-4.cable.virginmedia.com. [86.14.226.229]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m6sm6164867wic.2.2013.01.30.16.29.49 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:29:50 -0800 (PST) References: <5109921A.10101@psk31.plus.com> From: Roger Lapthorn X-Mailer: iPod Mail (10A523) In-Reply-To: <5109921A.10101@psk31.plus.com> Message-Id: <937E72B3-2E36-4319-9E54-28F12868734E@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:29:49 +0000 To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) 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 Eddie. I think WSPR2 is roughly equivalent to QRSS10, so some 5dB(?) better than QRSS3. It is possible that people did not detect the QRSS3 signal because of this, but more probable that the "manual" decode required did not happen. [...] Content analysis details: (-0.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [74.125.82.180 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (rogerlapthorn[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Scan-Signature: ac0f6ff1af52b6036ac1f4fe0c2bd52c Subject: Re: LF: 137.5kHz WSPR2 tonight Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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=TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL 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-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: mtain-dk01.r1000.mx.aol.com ; domain : gmail.com DKIM : pass x-aol-sid: 3039ac1db4055109bb6c3b6f X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Thanks Eddie.=20 I think WSPR2 is roughly equivalent to QRSS10, so some 5dB(?) better than QR= SS3. It is possible that people did not detect the QRSS3 signal because of t= his, but more probable that the "manual" decode required did not happen.=20 There is NO doubt in my mind that WSPR in all its flavours is an excellent r= esearch tool because of the Internet feedback.=20 73s Roger=20 (137kHz WSPR2 still running overnight) On 30 Jan 2013, at 21:35, g3zjo wrote: > Hi Roger >=20 > I did take a look for you last night but QRM levels here, interference lik= e heavy theater curtains, means 136KHz is a no go area for me unless whoever= it is stops doing what ever it is. >=20 > I am also doing it the difficult way still, running my 200uW TX on WSPR an= d QRSS on 475KHz producing regular spots from the UK, DL, PA and F. However c= onfirming my previous tests the QRSS3 may as well not be there. Not one repo= rt received even from a UK station. > This is with the QRSS between WSPR transmissions in the WSPR window. If th= e mode was the slightest bit comparable then surely it would produce a comme= nt even if those seeing the signal cannot resolve a call sign or the unique i= dentification Morse symbol. >=20 > I will now duck whilst it is mathematically proven that all who are decodi= ng the WSPR are copying the QRSS3 just fine.:-) >=20 > Eddie >=20 > On 30/01/2013 17:08, Roger Lapthorn wrote: >> My LF WSPR2 tests using the earth-electrode antenna and 30uW ERP max cont= inue this evening. With 2 unique reports yesterday (G8HUH 250km and M0GXM 1= 8km, both multiple times), I'm hopeful that others will copy me this evening= . >>=20 >> Please take a look for me if you get a chance. All spots really appreciat= ed. >>=20 >> 73s >> Roger G3XBM >> --=20 >> --=20 >> http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/ >> http://www.g3xbm.co.uk >> https://sites.google.com/site/sub9khz/ >> http://qss2.blogspot.com/ >> http://www.youtube.com/user/G3XBM >=20 >=20