Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by klubnl.pl (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8+deb8u2) with ESMTP id wAMLv6tE010486 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 22:57:12 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1gPwra-0005hw-Kk for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 21:50:18 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1gPwqe-0005hi-Rv for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 21:49:20 +0000 Received: from out3-22.antispamcloud.com ([185.201.18.22]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.91_59-0488984) (envelope-from ) id 1gPwqc-0006fs-8t for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 21:49:19 +0000 Received: from [85.60.35.36] (helo=servigilant.vigilant.es) by mx66.antispamcloud.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gPwqU-0002bE-9T for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 22:49:11 +0100 Received: from servigilant.vigilant.local ([fe80::c40d:8140:d722:5448]) by servigilant.vigilant.local ([fe80::c40d:8140:d722:5448%13]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 22:49:04 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?VIGILANT_Luis_Fern=E1ndez?= To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" Thread-Topic: WSPR-15 in WSJT-X Thread-Index: AdSCrSIBQQnTWAcERTO1i8YOmQTAZA== Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 21:49:03 +0000 Message-ID: <6DB8451D7F3D3947A5918808A59621EA14E20EF0@servigilant.vigilant.local> Accept-Language: es-ES, en-US Content-Language: es-ES X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [95.17.56.244] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: 85.60.35.36 X-MailAssure-Domain: vigilant.es X-MailAssure-Username: smtpsolarwinds Authentication-Results: antispamcloud.com; auth=pass (login) smtp.auth=smtpsolarwinds@vigilant.es X-MailAssure-Outgoing-Class: unsure X-MailAssure-Outgoing-Evidence: Combined (0.61) X-Recommended-Action: accept X-Filter-ID: EX5BVjFpneJeBchSMxfU5s56WBSNnvcd4OFOCiLTRM1602E9L7XzfQH6nu9C/Fh9KJzpNe6xgvOx q3u0UDjvOw5j2C7YKailx2Uop+U2Gs8m9etQhNgzEtWqBtUXOJSHVTGbEWWnE2yTxqfzAQugcS7r 3bOCyviIlZoEoL3WHkpIeZjZv1oz6oWKgngYgisM8DZztKGImYzpwtV2u5AjtgCDrJnyk8dOZdb4 LYgyWan70WuzEeIYESIPDdUJWOBu8dWAUxLOeS4q0S4KbLwhbRTRgg0GrAWSkAdQNY69aj36qyHr byaR4ePUKnm2FKDCDD2gT2inkFvv0JWjnb/IrPOCuoaV6DYsC3dGdIrLGqrW8aZxLG7Y0pk1ZN1X bEZoeGCH+SJjE48GzCqfGD0ud53+zxpzqXnGGiQ01PlGSKsJi5lucXozcAWJZZIdG3Z2NDwiAPJ6 Kw+cgKFzaOFmsJFVgpT1b21uZVckGp0ccOZ1/atoPPXpgcY5OL20mhCuJgQWcrs8q+WcXVXZDcW5 0nQA4NuQg1+/HGgfT4I9ZhrTiEw2ui8TVPldBCj8jBAToFZatHwquY+QRZn/Rc2PP6I5l+bukEPA N7a+1bvsjnceOGvJBqf0hkut1tJ9Kegr2A3hqJPqkDnne0pTqRkM74xYdSg/K3FRG/g24yUIY/AG cfu2pL17ltLioD+MXEtGrTUEzVwa+uCq5RHKCm0kbFkRM0jRto4AYz6JgGxzn7O52Bu5/Aj1F3su ktcn2RN3ZuM7jUXIESohoO51xWmU8SYwInn68P2QvrcXnKTadzfvRQxAtKllTvbNYFDgfRPE92Xk d2X6gU8kMgSoY9GiV7Q06iFoy7X9tTUxZRsXNWZECQi0NR4mgRxRt4043O1sfTkvSTFIG/jUj2jj Byvcvas3TEhWDyAjLFqNBRDWY6rNJzEQVGk65dUT4+m8d6g05pabXB+SEOpVJOeBeJe8Fg== X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@quarantine3.antispamcloud.com X-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Hi LF Regarding this issue there is an answer from Joe, K1JT Original message follows 73 de Luis EA5DOM Content analysis details: (1.8 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [185.201.18.22 listed in list.dnswl.org] 1.0 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 1.5 RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB RBL: SORBS: sender is an abusable web server [95.17.56.244 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] X-Scan-Signature: 640db27bf4e79f20c339a3df4106c3a6 Subject: LF: WSPR-15 in WSJT-X Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6DB8451D7F3D3947A5918808A59621EA14E20EF0servigilantvigi_" 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=HTML_MESSAGE, TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL 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 --_000_6DB8451D7F3D3947A5918808A59621EA14E20EF0servigilantvigi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi LF Regarding this issue there is an answer from Joe, K1JT Original message follows 73 de Luis EA5DOM 1. ########################################################################### 2. 3. I have received similar requests from a few others. We should probably 4. address this perceived need before too long. I would like to retire 5. WSPR-X, anyway, and do further development within WSJT-X. 6. 7. I am not persuaded that WSPR-15 is really the best way to go. Here are 8. some potentially important questions: 9. 10. 1. Is it clear that in practice WSPR-15 provides LF/MF decodes at lower 11. S/N than WSPR-2? If so, ho much lower? 12. 13. 2. Could an equivalent gain in performance be achieved by having the 14. decoder average several consecutive, properly synchronized WSPR-2 15. transmissions? 16. 17. 3. If a more sensitive WSPR-like mode is truly needed for LF/MF 18. experimentation, would it be better to create something that for now 19. I'll call "WSPR-MSK", which (like MSK144) uses OQPSK (Offset Quadrature 20. Phase-Shift Keying), a constant-envelope waveform, coherent 21. demodulation, and an LDPC code? Steve (K9AN) and I have discussed such 22. a possible mode, and we might be more motivated to develop that rather 23. than going "back" to WSPR-15. I suspect WSPR-MSK could be made as 24. sensitive (or better) than WSPR-15, even with transmissions shorter than 25. 15 minutes. 26. 27. -- 73, Joe, K1JT --_000_6DB8451D7F3D3947A5918808A59621EA14E20EF0servigilantvigi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi LF

Regarding this issue there is an answer from Joe, K1JT
Original message follows

73 de Luis
EA5DOM

  1. ###########################################################################=
  2.  
  3. I have received similar requests from a few others. We should probably
  4. address this perceived need before too long. I would like to retire
  5. WSPR-X, anyway, and do further development within WSJT-X.
  6.  
  7. I am not persuaded that WSPR-15 is really the best way to go. Here are
  8. some potentially important questions:
  9.  
  10. 1. Is it clear that in practice WSPR-15 provides LF/MF decodes at lower
  11. S/N than WSPR-2? If so, ho much lower?
  12.  
  13. 2. Could an equivalent gain in performance be achieved by having the
  14. decoder average several consecutive, properly synchronized WSPR-2
  15. transmissions?
  16.  
  17. 3. If a more sensitive WSPR-like mode is truly needed for LF/MF
  18. experimentation, would it be better to create something that for now
  19. I'll call "WSPR-MSK", which (like MSK144) uses OQPSK (Offset Quad= rature
  20. Phase-Shift Keying), a constant-envelope waveform, coherent
  21. demodulation, and an LDPC code? Steve (K9AN) and I have discussed such
  22. a possible mode, and we might be more motivated to develop that rather
  23. than going "back" to WSPR-15. I suspect WSPR-MSK could be made as=
  24. sensitive (or better) than WSPR-15, even with transmissions shorter than
  25. 15 minutes.
  26.  
  27. -- 73, Joe, K1JT
--_000_6DB8451D7F3D3947A5918808A59621EA14E20EF0servigilantvigi_--