Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.67.23.138 with SMTP id ia10csp1211pad; Sat, 28 Sep 2013 05:57:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.37.164 with SMTP id z4mr6631493wij.30.1380373024888; Sat, 28 Sep 2013 05:57:04 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id lu5si1103253wic.2.1969.12.31.16.00.00; Sat, 28 Sep 2013 05:57:04 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) client-ip=195.171.43.25; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) smtp.mail=owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1VPtdR-0007qW-PS for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 28 Sep 2013 13:28:33 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1VPtdQ-0007qN-Vl for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 28 Sep 2013 13:28:32 +0100 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de ([129.206.100.212]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1VPtdO-00057r-Nx for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 28 Sep 2013 13:28:31 +0100 Received: from freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.29.204]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id r8SCSTAS021539 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 28 Sep 2013 14:28:29 +0200 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 r8SCSRE0030706 for ; Sat, 28 Sep 2013 14:28:27 +0200 Message-ID: <5246CB68.40004@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 14:28:24 +0200 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 References: <001801cebbe6$edceac60$6401a8c0@JAYDELL> In-Reply-To: <001801cebbe6$edceac60$6401a8c0@JAYDELL> X-Spam-Score: -3.1 (---) 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, LF, Am 28.09.2013 03:06, schrieb jrusgrove@comcast.net: > Stefan > > Memory fuzzy here ... not sure if I've seen a -40 snr on your signal > in the past. Do you recall? > > 2013-09-28 00:30 DK7FC 0.137610 -40 0 JN49ik 1 W1VD FN31ls > 6099 295 > Jay W1VD WD2XNS WE2XGR/2 WG2XSR/2 [...] Content analysis details: (-3.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [129.206.100.212 listed in list.dnswl.org] -2.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: ecf102e6d15c1e466f357d5e6d956ac3 Subject: Re: LF: DK7FC WSPR15 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020906070801020303040007" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0 tests=HTML_40_50,HTML_MESSAGE, HTML_TAG_EXISTS_TBODY 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 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 2274 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020906070801020303040007 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Jay, LF, Am 28.09.2013 03:06, schrieb jrusgrove@comcast.net: > Stefan > > Memory fuzzy here ... not sure if I've seen a -40 snr on your signal > in the past. Do you recall? > > 2013-09-28 00:30 DK7FC 0.137610 -40 0 JN49ik 1 W1VD FN31ls > 6099 295 > Jay W1VD WD2XNS WE2XGR/2 WG2XSR/2 Yes i do. When you search the database for my call, last 2 weeks and sorted by SNR you will see that -40 is rare. But even -41 is possible! See: Timestamp Call MHz SNR Drift Grid Pwr Reporter RGrid km az 2013-09-25 00:00 DK7FC 0.137610 -41 0 JN49ik 1 RW3ADB KO85ro 2045 59 2013-09-26 21:00 DK7FC 0.137610 -41 0 JN49ik 1 RW3ADB KO85ro 2045 59 2013-09-23 17:00 DK7FC 0.137610 -40 0 JN49ik 1 SV8RV KM07ks 1621 139 2013-09-25 22:00 DK7FC 0.137610 -40 0 JN49ik 1 4X1RF KM72ls 2850 121 2013-09-21 18:00 DK7FC 0.137610 -40 0 JN49ik 1 R3LW KO54mq 1626 60 2013-09-18 19:00 DK7FC 0.137610 -40 0 JN49ik 1 RW3ADB KO85ro 2045 59 2013-09-23 06:30 DK7FC 0.137610 -40 0 JN49ik 1 UW8SM KN28iv 1163 87 2013-09-28 00:30 DK7FC 0.137610 -40 0 JN49ik 1 W1VD FN31ls 6099 295 RW3ADB usually has rather poor RX results (often 10 dB lower SNR than other RX stns close to him). That supports my thought that the decode level appears even lower if there is QRM in the passband. One could make a test: Use a white noise generator with a high level and a notch at 136.610 Hz (my TX QRG), maybe 10 Hz notch BW. My signal must be close to the decode limit. The rest of the 200 Hz wide passband of WSPR should be covered with noise, maybe 20 dB above my signal. Theorectically there should be a decode but the SNR must be terrible, maybe you can get -42 dB SNR. That would be a new record, hi :-) 73, Stefan/DK7FC --------------020906070801020303040007 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Jay, LF,

Am 28.09.2013 03:06, schrieb jrusgrove@comcast.net:
Stefan

Memory fuzzy here ... not sure if I've seen a -40 snr on your signal in the past. Do you recall?

2013-09-28 00:30  DK7FC  0.137610  -40  0  JN49ik  1  W1VD  FN31ls  6099  295
Jay W1VD  WD2XNS  WE2XGR/2 WG2XSR/2

Yes i do. When you search the database for my call, last 2 weeks and sorted by SNR you will see that -40 is rare. But even -41 is possible! See:

Timestamp Call MHz SNR Drift Grid Pwr Reporter RGrid km az
 2013-09-25 00:00   DK7FC   0.137610   -41   0   JN49ik   1   RW3ADB   KO85ro   2045   59 
 2013-09-26 21:00   DK7FC   0.137610   -41   0   JN49ik   1   RW3ADB   KO85ro   2045   59 
 2013-09-23 17:00   DK7FC   0.137610   -40   0   JN49ik   1   SV8RV   KM07ks   1621   139 
 2013-09-25 22:00   DK7FC   0.137610   -40   0   JN49ik   1   4X1RF   KM72ls   2850   121 
 2013-09-21 18:00   DK7FC   0.137610   -40   0   JN49ik   1   R3LW   KO54mq   1626   60 
 2013-09-18 19:00   DK7FC   0.137610   -40   0   JN49ik   1   RW3ADB   KO85ro   2045   59 
 2013-09-23 06:30   DK7FC   0.137610   -40   0   JN49ik   1   UW8SM   KN28iv   1163   87 
 2013-09-28 00:30   DK7FC   0.137610   -40   0   JN49ik   1   W1VD   FN31ls   6099   295 

RW3ADB usually has rather poor RX results (often 10 dB lower SNR than other RX stns close to him). That supports my thought that the decode level appears even lower if there is QRM in the passband.

One could make a test: Use a white noise generator with a high level and a notch at 136.610 Hz (my TX QRG), maybe 10 Hz notch BW. My signal must be close to the decode limit. The rest of the 200 Hz wide passband of WSPR should be covered with noise, maybe 20 dB above my signal. Theorectically there should be a decode but the SNR must be terrible, maybe you can get -42 dB SNR. That would be a new record, hi :-)

73, Stefan/DK7FC
--------------020906070801020303040007--