Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mp03.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id B870C38000099; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:08:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1U7Seg-0004Vm-0G for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:29:22 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1U7Sef-0004Vd-Ak for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:29:21 +0000 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de ([129.206.210.211]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1U7Sed-0000cM-EK for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:29:20 +0000 Received: from freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.29.204]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r1IFTII3007625 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:29:18 +0100 Received: from [129.206.22.206] (pc206.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.22.206]) by freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.11.20060308/8.11.2) with ESMTP id r1IFTIPj001499; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:29:18 +0100 Message-ID: <512248C9.70004@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:29:13 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Stefan_Sch=E4fer?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org CC: Joe Taylor References: <001101ce0dd3$88815180$7401a8c0@LFMF> In-Reply-To: <001101ce0dd3$88815180$7401a8c0@LFMF> X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) 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 Jay, John, LF, Thanks once again for an accurate comparison of weak signal modes used on LF/MF. I don't know if you've informed Joe/K1JT about the test results (and if he's still subscribed to the reflector), so i CC him here. Interesting results! And as you say in your conclusion, the need for a linear PA makes the problem for many TX stns. I think another most important for the practical use are the web features such as the map and database. This is de facto a serious motivation factor for both, TX and RX stations. I would like to run some WOLF tests as well but still didn't finish my AM modulator for the PA. Actually it works but not completely finished yet. Other projects got the priority, somehow, you know... [...] Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust [129.206.210.211 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.6 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: f62c7cf8eeb8e5a327b71719e9bffff1 Subject: Re: LF: WSPR-15 vs WOLF Tests 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: 3039ac1dc147512251e32fe3 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Hi Jay, John, LF, Thanks once again for an accurate comparison of weak signal modes used on LF/MF. I don't know if you've informed Joe/K1JT about the test results (and if he's still subscribed to the reflector), so i CC him here. Interesting results! And as you say in your conclusion, the need for a linear PA makes the problem for many TX stns. I think another most important for the practical use are the web features such as the map and database. This is de facto a serious motivation factor for both, TX and RX stations. I would like to run some WOLF tests as well but still didn't finish my AM modulator for the PA. Actually it works but not completely finished yet. Other projects got the priority, somehow, you know... 73, Stefan/DK7FC Am 18.02.2013 13:29, schrieb jrusgrove@comcast.net: > John and I did a fairly controlled weak-signal test on 136 kHz yesterday, > comparing WSPR-15 and Stewart Nelson's WOLF program (as modified by > DL4YHF). For those that might be interested, John's writeup of the > result is posted here: > > http://www.w1tag.com/WSPR15WOLF.htm > > Jay W1VD WD2XNS WE2XGR/2 > > > >