Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.237.98 with SMTP id vb2csp643209igc; Fri, 27 Dec 2013 14:23:50 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.180.39.43 with SMTP id m11mr34980871wik.8.1388183030286; Fri, 27 Dec 2013 14:23:50 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id v7si13430531wjw.95.2013.12.27.14.23.49 for ; Fri, 27 Dec 2013 14:23:50 -0800 (PST) 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 1VwfIt-000058-UR for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 27 Dec 2013 21:50:47 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1VwfIt-00004z-Gm for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 27 Dec 2013 21:50:47 +0000 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 1VwfIr-00049T-RW for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 27 Dec 2013 21:50:46 +0000 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 rBRLoifp005168 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 27 Dec 2013 22:50:44 +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 rBRLoiTJ017639 for ; Fri, 27 Dec 2013 22:50:44 +0100 Message-ID: <52BDF628.7050001@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 22:50:32 +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 References: <039101cf0331$b32ebfe0$198c3fa0$@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <039101cf0331$b32ebfe0$198c3fa0$@comcast.net> X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-) 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 Jim, Am 27.12.2013 19:30, schrieb hvanesce: > > [...] but I do not know the offset of my sound card clock; my sound > card clock and my low-accuracy reference clock differ by 0.3Hz (+/- > 1mHz over short and long time intervals), so until install an accurate > clock I can only guess that my clock offset could be +/-1Hz or so. > Accordingly the center frequency of the signal shown here could be +/- > 1Hz or so from the indicated 8972.81 This question can be answered by tracking the signal on 11904.76190 Hz which came back, today 14:30 UTC. > > Is it most likely that the signal in the attached is QRM? > R, CFM. [...] Content analysis details: (-1.3 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] -0.6 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: 622b0ca3461797caf37867321c193763 Subject: Re: VLF: QRM? Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060306020200050901060407" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=HTML_50_60,HTML_MESSAGE, HTML_TITLE_EMPTY 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: 3514 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060306020200050901060407 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Jim, Am 27.12.2013 19:30, schrieb hvanesce: > > [...] but I do not know the offset of my sound card clock; my sound > card clock and my low-accuracy reference clock differ by 0.3Hz (+/- > 1mHz over short and long time intervals), so until install an accurate > clock I can only guess that my clock offset could be +/-1Hz or so. > Accordingly the center frequency of the signal shown here could be +/- > 1Hz or so from the indicated 8972.81 This question can be answered by tracking the signal on 11904.76190 Hz which came back, today 14:30 UTC. > > Is it most likely that the signal in the attached is QRM? > R, CFM. 73, Stefan/DK7FC --------------060306020200050901060407 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Jim,

Am 27.12.2013 19:30, schrieb hvanesce:

 

[...] but I do not know the offset of my sound card clock; my sound card clock and my low-accuracy reference clock differ by 0.3Hz (+/- 1mHz over short and long time intervals), so until install an accurate clock I can only guess that my clock offset could be +/-1Hz or so. Accordingly the center frequency of the signal shown here could be +/- 1Hz or so from the indicated 8972.81
This question can be answered by tracking the signal on 11904.76190 Hz which came back, today 14:30 UTC.

Is it most likely that the signal in the attached is QRM?

R, CFM.

73, Stefan/DK7FC
--------------060306020200050901060407--