Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-me05.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 04CF7380000AB; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 19:33:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1UH0aJ-0005Xi-3x for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 23:32:19 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1UH0aI-0005XZ-O5 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 23:32:18 +0000 Received: from out1.ip06ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.242]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1UH0Z9-00041A-IB for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 23:32:17 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApMBAAwARVFOln1z/2dsb2JhbAANNsJLgmWCA4MeAQEBAQMyAQVRCwkPCRYPCQMCAQIBRRMIAQG4C5JljxwWgyoDll6UDA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,858,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="569129270" Received: from host-78-150-125-115.as13285.net (HELO [127.0.0.1]) ([78.150.125.115]) by out1.ip06ir2.opaltelecom.net with ESMTP; 16 Mar 2013 23:30:30 +0000 Message-ID: <51450093.1030001@psk31.plus.com> Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 23:30:27 +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: <7229BB1361E742469FB9FBED2CCF8DE0@GaryAsus> <5144F6E5.80302@psk31.plus.com> <5144FAD8.3090108@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> In-Reply-To: <5144FAD8.3090108@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 130316-0, 16/03/2013), 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: Hi Stefan Saw and heard your signal, its narrower than the Navtex on fldigi. Too late at night to work out why.:-) GN Eddie [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- X-Scan-Signature: e09cca6d8e44a91eadbdfb3e1b8aec09 Subject: Re: LF: NAVTEX Beacon on 630m Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; 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: 3039ac1d608d5145013a67f8 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Hi Stefan Saw and heard your signal, its narrower than the Navtex on fldigi. Too late at night to work out why.:-) GN Eddie On 16/03/2013 23:06, Stefan Schäfer wrote: > Gary, Eddie, > > OK, i will add another mode to test on MF this night. Will use NAVTEX > (generated in FLDIGI) somwhere arround 477.3 kHz. Coming soon (abt 10 > min...). > > Reports apprechiated :-) > > 73, Stefan/DK7FC > > PS: Yes the shift is 170 Hz but the band is pretty clean. Have spent 2 > hours in CW now. No one except NDBs, CW-, WSPR- and these few > tests-stations are active. > >