Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mj05.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 71AE838000115; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 11:25:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1UDdcQ-0006Y1-AQ for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 16:24:34 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1UDdcP-0006Xs-Tq for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 16:24:33 +0000 Received: from out1.ip06ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.242]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1UDdcO-0005NJ-AA for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 16:24:32 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApMBAOS9OFFOlmQ+/2dsb2JhbAANLgjBaIJhgXeDIAEBAQEDOFELCQ8JFg8JAwIBAgFFEwgBAbAekw2NQBeBPBaDKgOWS5N6 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,803,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="568067056" Received: from host-78-150-100-62.as13285.net (HELO [127.0.0.1]) ([78.150.100.62]) by out1.ip06ir2.opaltelecom.net with ESMTP; 07 Mar 2013 16:24:11 +0000 Message-ID: <5138BF2A.6090008@psk31.plus.com> Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 16:24:10 +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: <5138AF72.8000906@psk31.plus.com> In-Reply-To: <5138AF72.8000906@psk31.plus.com> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 130307-0, 07/03/2013), 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: LF It was mid December 2012 when I threw out JT9-2 as a pigs ear which would not decode more that 5 consecutive transmissions from my Kenwood TS870 due I thought to slight frequency drift. Relevant files were sent to Joe. [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- X-Scan-Signature: c1f72e5acb1277e013f90c915ad7ad68 Subject: Re: LF: JT9-2 TEST 474KHz 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: 3039ac1d7b995138bf870a42 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none LF It was mid December 2012 when I threw out JT9-2 as a pigs ear which would not decode more that 5 consecutive transmissions from my Kenwood TS870 due I thought to slight frequency drift. Relevant files were sent to Joe. ver 0.5, r3038 has just decoded 20 consecutive TX/RX sessions with just 2 failures, both of which show no reason for the no decode, 10 sync points, time 0, drift 0, (no I didn't have have Save all Ticked). Despite this JT9-2 now seems capable of a QSO using a non rubidium locked TX. Next I will try JT9-5 Eddie G3ZJO On 07/03/2013 15:17, g3zjo wrote: > TX'ing JT9-2 475.550KHz. 474.200 plus 1350 tone TX First Here. > > Too soon to say if its more reliable / less troubled by slight drift. > > Reports QSO welcome. > > 73 G3ZJO Eddie > >