Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mj06.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 713FB3800009F; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 12:33:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1UDHay-0001KD-F8 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 16:53:36 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1UDHay-0001K4-0T for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 16:53:36 +0000 Received: from out1.ip07ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.243]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1UDHaw-0007rn-IA for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 16:53:34 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApQBAFhcN1ECZMUt/2dsb2JhbAANN4ghuUeCW4Fugx0BAQEBAyMPAQVRCwkPAgIFFgsCAgkDAgECAUUTCAEBsTVxkmuBI41wFoIXgRMDlkuTeA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,795,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="64721209" Received: from host-2-100-197-45.as13285.net (HELO [127.0.0.1]) ([2.100.197.45]) by out1.ip07ir2.opaltelecom.net with ESMTP; 06 Mar 2013 16:53:13 +0000 Message-ID: <51377478.7040507@psk31.plus.com> Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 16:53:12 +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: <51371E11.6020502@psk31.plus.com> <513746F3.7090508@psk31.plus.com> <84B77AD08F5F42849E6492B9048EC349@IBM7FFA209F07C> <51375C40.6050501@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <513761CD.8070107@psk31.plus.com> <51376AF3.9040409@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <51376C3C.80002@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> In-Reply-To: <51376C3C.80002@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 130306-0, 06/03/2013), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean 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: It is not that slow and if it is the difference between a QSO and not, it is worth a try. I see something now what mode is that? Amtor is about the same as the RTTY you have been trying. [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- X-Scan-Signature: bb61bee384896e075004ae5ec954ddd2 Subject: Re: LF: RTTY vs.MFSK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: 3039ac1d7b9a51377df14837 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none It is not that slow and if it is the difference between a QSO and not, it is worth a try. I see something now what mode is that? Amtor is about the same as the RTTY you have been trying. Eddie On 06/03/2013 16:18, Stefan Schäfer wrote: > > Am 06.03.2013 17:12, schrieb Stefan Schäfer: >> [...] >> >> I will now switch to MFSK-4, same QRG. > > Sorry, aborted. It is much to slow and so it is uninteresting when > thinking about a real QSO mode.. > How fast is AMTOR?? > > 73, Stefan > >