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 wAAItT9H011698 for ; Sat, 10 Nov 2018 19:55:30 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1gLYMu-0002gX-Fk for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2018 18:52:28 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1gLYMt-0002gK-Px for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2018 18:52:27 +0000 Received: from mail-ed1-x533.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::533]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.91_59-0488984) (envelope-from ) id 1gLYMr-0005f7-IO for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2018 18:52:26 +0000 Received: by mail-ed1-x533.google.com with SMTP id b34-v6so4250228ede.13 for ; Sat, 10 Nov 2018 10:52:25 -0800 (PST) X-DKIM-Result: Domain=gmail.com Result=Good and Known Domain DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=w4DQU5mBhYtSaqYDH4OHDTNGVOgck8LZJ4yPO2m9xCA=; b=aY7/ATmSHWwSdH1fixMP+Tl/w2MMLoZAXIIL54/CVYpWgE/c8jEEgc3cKntr1a4Cch 4HVdj6ILQGQKCtw/1Q7+ttvbtCNAhpdmDviMHzBRHO38/b2hfhyncI+D3Wuaw6vSag6Z gGQCDiCLyie/1yj1WhLh9G9VggQ5M5g8BpTjBK24/b1A7yRWCC6Si2+UTXUw0ToJa72v jl5w7BVelA2CZOMnRCfjeEn7zPX1c9KgjTGmFZKdMftvE+1rVf97GBoOIdGS352nqyuX HkeEritB2xtQmZsnRmnofybIJnpEc5feED2tjL3DWnbZMMy3gpafKxnMRO2BE6UKFKDz TdZg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=w4DQU5mBhYtSaqYDH4OHDTNGVOgck8LZJ4yPO2m9xCA=; b=JaQVbe4hx+KWqSTtnCc+l5PxxR2dxV9K3fx5EgJZfV8wbY6m0TMOBRi9DrOVVXyJkb a0Sungc6Qygh8WefGp86XTzYBt6ZgkFZGaNENIAfppBrLdGmTcWBz9d2ql1Fz2TvHaFF JTTHM75wZe1O+pNYr24DIV6pm6Upj3R94JpKpmt+MT4/gxw3p6OReQPmC22pXyCk9h0/ /4IzAiwWQuaeeyckCOvLqTOh9igVKwps+oLN6sGsz3XEF15hMzDaS9Lloze/Bxj0W/bG 8K1fE/vqnMyewDDwP1QU/hCkM3bRuyeodnlpkmPHyNVWVlokqr7+oYxtq7JCpyLVI3CX 7WHA== X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gJsGoa6tYgRtZtgh6LjjQjPsumE2EJh7N642/j2AaZqw5/zeire EVbGtl97vHpF67pZbmoXcfv5ZuW4r8QjdyZvR8r0SQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5e2PmtUicPe/LpacbFeqmRrGQcMpotX39uaGOAOy2mu1A7uJZKjvsKnpBNjIAVmzs9iWYZR59/14ym2TMPFLoY= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:6181:: with SMTP id q1-v6mr5120770ejk.219.1541875944724; Sat, 10 Nov 2018 10:52:24 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1541712573053.31739@kuleuven.be> <0a5402bd-72b3-f9d7-0eeb-52897ff2a4d4@n1bug.com> <1541715141849.85703@kuleuven.be> <1541860496905.82068@kuleuven.be> In-Reply-To: From: Andy Talbot Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 18:52:13 +0000 Message-ID: To: LineOne Cc: rsgb_lf_group X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) 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: I meant symbol period = 65536 / 12000 Andy www.g4jnt.com On Sat, 10 Nov 2018 at 18:44, Andy Talbot wrote: [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [2a00:1450:4864:20:0:0:0:533 listed in] [list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (andy.g4jnt[at]gmail.com) 0.0 HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST BODY: HTML font color similar or identical to background 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Scan-Signature: ab1ca199b8aaf15d40e221a02a89bb55 Subject: Re: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: JT9-2 and JT9-5 mode application Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f91e35057a53f709" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.8 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE, HTML_TAG_EXISTS_TBODY,HTML_WEB_BUGS,PORN_4 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 --000000000000f91e35057a53f709 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I meant symbol period =3D 65536 / 12000 Andy www.g4jnt.com On Sat, 10 Nov 2018 at 18:44, Andy Talbot wrote: > The tone spacing of WSPR 15 is 0.183Hz which is one eighth of the WSPR-2 > spacing. Similarly, the symbol length is 8 times that of WSPR2 at 5.46= s > With 162 symbols that gives a transmission period of 14.75 minutes > > Exact values are : > Spacing =3D 12000 / (8192 * 8) Hz > Symbol period 131072 / 12000 > > Andy > www.g4jnt.com > > > > On Sat, 10 Nov 2018 at 14:40, Rik Strobbe wrote= : > >> Hello Paul, >> >> >> I cannot find the WSPR15 specs right away, but I assume that is is just = a >> "stretched" version of WSPR(2). >> >> In that case it would be 4-FSK at 0.195 Bd and a tone spacing of >> 0.195 Hz (0.8 Hz bandwidth). >> >> JT9-15 would be 9-FSK at 0.116 Bd and a tone spacing of 0.116 Hz (1 Hz >> bandwidth). >> >> Due to the smaller tone spacing I would assume that JT9-15 will be more >> vulnerable to frequency instabilities than WSPR15. >> >> With the JT9 specs, JT9-10 would have 0.174 Hz tone spacing, close to >> the 0.195 Hz of WSPR15. >> >> But before implementing this it would be interesting to do some TA tests >> ising JT9-2 (where the S/N should be close to WSPR) and JT9-5 (4 dB bett= er >> than WSPR ?) >> >> >> 73, Rik ON7YD >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *Van:* rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk >> namens N1BUG paul@n1bug.com [rsgb_lf_group] < >> rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk> >> *Verzonden:* donderdag 8 november 2018 23:42 >> *Aan:* rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk >> *Onderwerp:* Re: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: JT9-2 and JT9-5 mode applicatio= n >> >> >> >> Hi Rik, >> >> I do not know the symbol lengths for JT9 slow and I do not know how >> it compares to WSPR about frequency stability requirements. >> >> From my experiment last winter I can say that on LF WSPR15 often >> gets across the pond when WSPR2 cannot. Clearly for WSPR mode, 15 >> minutes is no problem. Of course, maybe it's different for JT9. It >> was very interesting to see the success of WSPR15. That was what got >> me started thinking about slow versions of JT9 again. >> >> I would be more concerned about stability of my equipment. The >> homebrew stuff is probably OK but the rather expensive transceiver >> used to drive the TX converters has a terrible TCXO. I never had >> much incentive to work on trying to fix it, but if JT9 slow becomes >> popular and if it needs better stability this will give me all the >> incentive needed! :) >> >> Yes of course JT9-86400 for Stefan! ;-) >> >> 73, >> Paul N1BUG >> >> On 11/8/18 5:12 PM, Rik Strobbe wrote: >> > Hi Paul, >> > >> > Adding even slower modes in the application is not difficult. But >> > the slower we go the more stringent the frequency stability >> > requirements are. For groundwave this is limited by the TX and RX >> > stability, but for skywave propagation the mood changes of miss >> > ionosphere could be nefast. 136 kHz might be better suited for >> > JT-10 ot JT-30 than 472kHz. Stefan might be interested in >> > JT-86400 (one message a day) for ULF ;-) >> > >> > About JT9 coding: for this I am using another exe file of the >> > WSJT-X suite. It seems to work fine, both for free and structured >> > messages. >> > >> > 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T >> > >> > >> > ________________________________________ Van: >> > rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk >> > namens N1BUG paul@n1bug.com [rsgb_lf_group] >> > Verzonden: donderdag 8 november >> > 2018 22:57 Aan: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; >> > rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk Onderwerp: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: >> > LF: JT9-2 and JT9-5 mode application >> > >> > Hello Rik, >> > >> > I am very interested in this! Thank you very much for your work! >> > Tomorrow I will download the program. >> > >> > I think we badly need these slow modes for the average LF >> > operators (which is most of us at least on this side of the >> > pond). >> > >> > If the beta tests are successful, would it be possible to add >> > JT9-10 and perhaps even JT9-30? For trans-Atlantic QSOs I think >> > these could be very helpful. >> > >> > How did you transmit JT9-2 signals for the QSOs? I can do that >> > with my U3S but it can only send free text messages limited to >> > 13 characters. It cannot send the packed messages normally used >> > for QSOs. >> > >> > 73, Paul N1BUG >> > >> > >> > On 11/8/18 4:29 PM, Rik Strobbe wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> >> >> a few months ago there was a short discussion about a >> >> "revival" of the slower JT9 modes such as JT9-2 and JT9-5. >> >> >> >> These modes existed in early versions of WSJT-X, and had the >> >> advantage of a better S/N treshold level, at the cost of >> >> longer transmissions. But unfortunately thse modes were >> >> abandoned in later WSJT-X version. >> >> >> >> As a result I raised this question in de WSJT-X developers >> >> group, but there was no intention do implement these modes >> >> again, as the focus was more on the (further) developing of >> >> new(er) modes. >> >> >> >> Having a closer look at the WSJT-X source code I noticed that >> >> the JT9 decoding was done in a separate executable and with >> >> some assistance of Joe, K1JT, I managed to write an application >> >> that used this executable for decoding. >> >> >> >> As this executable only decodes JT9 signals, not JT9-2 and >> >> JT9-5, I had to use a lttle trick: speeding up a JT9-2 >> >> recording by a factor 2 results in a JT9 signal (at the double >> >> frequency) that can be fed to the JT9 decoder. The same can be >> >> done for JT9-5 (now speeding it up 5 times). >> >> >> >> Some tests showed that this way a JT9-2 signal could be copied >> >> at a 2.5dB better S/N treshold compared to JT9(-1). Not >> >> completely the theoretical 3dB, but 2.5dB can often be the >> >> difference between a failed or successful QSO. JT9-5 hasn't >> >> been tested yet. >> >> >> >> All this was done "manually" and it was rather time consuming. >> >> >> >> So I decided to write an application that I named SlowJT9. It >> >> takes care of all the conversions and frequency shifts. >> >> >> >> Besides JT9-2 and JT9-5 it also supports JT9(-1) for >> >> convenience reasons. >> >> >> >> Over the past weeks I tested the application in JT9 mode and >> >> after more than a dozen QSO's I feel that it now time to >> >> release a beta version. >> >> >> >> >> >> Whoever is interested can download the SlowJT9 installation >> >> file at http://472khz.org/SlowJT9/SlowJT9_setup.exe. >> >> >> >> >> >> For now only a Windows version of SlowJT9 is available. But as >> >> the used IDE has cross platform facilities it should be >> >> possible to support other operating systems as well in the >> >> future. >> >> >> >> >> >> The aim of this beta version is: - To test if the application >> >> is working properly. - To find out if JT9-2 and/or JT9-5 have >> >> a sufficient S/N advantage over JT9(-1). - To find out if there >> >> is sufficient interest in using these modes to continue the >> >> project. Therefore all comments, bug reports and suggestions >> >> are most welcome via the Blacksheep RSGB LF Reflector, Yahoo >> >> RSGB LF Group or directly at on7yd@strobbe.org. >> >> >> >> 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T >> __._,_.___ >> ------------------------------ >> Posted by: N1BUG >> ------------------------------ >> Reply via web post >> >> =E2=80=A2 Reply to sender >> >> =E2=80=A2 Reply to group >> >> =E2=80=A2 Start a new topic >> >> =E2=80=A2 Messages in this topic >> >> (4) >> Visit Your Group >> >> >> - New Members >> >> 1 >> >> [image: Yahoo! Groups] >> >> =E2=80=A2 Privacy >> =E2=80=A2 Unsubscribe >> =E2= =80=A2 Terms >> of Use >> >> SPONSORED LINKS >> document.write('[image: AOL Ad] >> '); >> >> document.write('[image: AOL Ad] >> '); >> >> document.write('[image: AOL Ad] >> '); >> >> . >> >> __,_._,___ >> > --000000000000f91e35057a53f709 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I meant symbol period=C2=A0 =3D 65536 / 12000



On Sat, 10 Nov 2018 at 18:44, Andy Talbot <andy.g4jnt@gmail.com> wrote:
The tone spacing of WSPR 15 is 0.183Hz= which is one eighth of the WSPR-2 spacing.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Similarly, the sym= bol length is 8 times that of WSPR2 at 5.46s
With 162 symbols that gives a transmiss= ion period of 14.75 minutes

Exact values are :
=C2=A0Spacing =3D 12000 / (8192 * 8) Hz=C2=A0
=C2=A0Symbol = period 131072 / 12000

<= div dir=3D"ltr">


On Sat, 10 Nov 2018 at 14= :40, Rik Strobbe <rik.strobbe@kuleuven.be> wrote:

Hello Paul,


I cannot find the WSPR15 specs right away, but I assume that is is just = a "stretched" version of WSPR(2).

In that case it would=C2=A0be 4-FSK at 0.195 Bd and a tone spacing of 0.= 195=C2=A0Hz=C2=A0(0.8 Hz=C2=A0bandwidth).

JT9-15 would be 9-FSK at 0.116 Bd and a tone spacing of 0.116 Hz (1 Hz b= andwidth).

Due to the smaller tone spacing I would assume that JT9-15 will be more = vulnerable to frequency instabilities than WSPR15.

With=C2=A0the JT9 specs, JT9-10 would have 0.174 Hz tone spacing, close = to=C2=A0 the 0.195 Hz of WSPR15.

But before implementing this it would be interesting to do some TA tests= ising JT9-2 (where the S/N should be close to WSPR) and JT9-5 (4 dB better= than WSPR ?)


73, Rik=C2=A0 ON7YD



Van: rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk <rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.c= o.uk> namens N1BUG paul@n1bug.com [rsgb_lf_group] <rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk>=
Verzonden: donderdag 8 november 2018 23:42
Aan: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk
Onderwerp: Re: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: JT9-2 and JT9-5 mode applicat= ion
=C2=A0
=C2=A0

Hi Rik,

I do not know the symbol lengths for JT9 slow and I do not know how
it compares to WSPR about frequency stability requirements.

>From my experiment last winter I can say that on LF WSPR15 often
gets across the pond when WSPR2 cannot. Clearly for WSPR mode, 15
minutes is no problem. Of course, maybe it's different for JT9. It
was very interesting to see the success of WSPR15. That was what got
me started thinking about slow versions of JT9 again.

I would be more concerned about stability of my equipment. The
homebrew stuff is probably OK but the rather expensive transceiver
used to drive the TX converters has a terrible TCXO. I never had
much incentive to work on trying to fix it, but if JT9 slow becomes
popular and if it needs better stability this will give me all the
incentive needed! :)

Yes of course JT9-86400 for Stefan! ;-)

73,
Paul N1BUG

On 11/8/18 5:12 PM, Rik Strobbe wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Adding even slower modes in the application is not difficult. But
> the slower we go the more stringent the frequency stability
> requirements are. For groundwave this is limited by the TX and RX
> stability, but for skywave propagation the mood changes of miss
> ionosphere could be nefast. 136 kHz might be better suited for
> JT-10 ot JT-30 than 472kHz. Stefan might be interested in
> JT-86400 (one message a day) for ULF ;-)
>
> About JT9 coding: for this I am using another exe file of the
> WSJT-X suite. It seems to work fine, both for free and structured
> messages.
>
> 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T
>
>
> ________________________________________ Van:
> r= sgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk <rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk> > namens N1BUG paul@= n1bug.com [rsgb_lf_group]
> <rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk> Verzonden: donderdag 8 november<= br> > 2018 22:57 Aan: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org;
> r= sgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk Onderwerp: [rsgb_lf_group] Re:
> LF: JT9-2 and JT9-5 mode application
>
> Hello Rik,
>
> I am very interested in this! Thank you very much for your work!
> Tomorrow I will download the program.
>
> I think we badly need these slow modes for the average LF
> operators (which is most of us at least on this side of the
> pond).
>
> If the beta tests are successful, would it be possible to add
> JT9-10 and perhaps even JT9-30? For trans-Atlantic QSOs I think
> these could be very helpful.
>
> How did you transmit JT9-2 signals for the QSOs? I can do that
> with my U3S but it can only send free text messages limited to
> 13 characters. It cannot send the packed messages normally used
> for QSOs.
>
> 73, Paul N1BUG
>
>
> On 11/8/18 4:29 PM, Rik Strobbe wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>> a few months ago there was a short discussion about a
>> "revival" of the slower JT9 modes such as JT9-2 and JT9-= 5.
>>
>> These modes existed in early versions of WSJT-X, and had the
>> advantage of a better S/N treshold level, at the cost of
>> longer transmissions. But unfortunately thse modes were
>> abandoned in later WSJT-X version.
>>
>> As a result I raised this question in de WSJT-X developers
>> group, but there was no intention do implement these modes
>> again, as the focus was more on the (further) developing of
>> new(er) modes.
>>
>> Having a closer look at the WSJT-X source code I noticed that
>> the JT9 decoding was done in a separate executable and with
>> some assistance of Joe, K1JT, I managed to write an application >> that used this executable for decoding.
>>
>> As this executable only decodes JT9 signals, not JT9-2 and
>> JT9-5, I had to use a lttle trick: speeding up a JT9-2
>> recording by a factor 2 results in a JT9 signal (at the double
>> frequency) that can be fed to the JT9 decoder. The same can be
>> done for JT9-5 (now speeding it up 5 times).
>>
>> Some tests showed that this way a JT9-2 signal could be copied
>> at a 2.5dB better S/N treshold compared to JT9(-1). Not
>> completely the theoretical 3dB, but 2.5dB can often be the
>> difference between a failed or successful QSO. JT9-5 hasn't >> been tested yet.
>>
>> All this was done "manually" and it was rather time cons= uming.
>>
>> So I decided to write an application that I named SlowJT9. It
>> takes care of all the conversions and frequency shifts.
>>
>> Besides JT9-2 and JT9-5 it also supports JT9(-1) for
>> convenience reasons.
>>
>> Over the past weeks I tested the application in JT9 mode and
>> after more than a dozen QSO's I feel that it now time to
>> release a beta version.
>>
>>
>> Whoever is interested can download the SlowJT9 installation
>> file at http://472khz.org/SlowJT9/SlowJT9_setup.exe.
>>
>>
>> For now only a Windows version of SlowJT9 is available. But as >> the used IDE has cross platform facilities it should be
>> possible to support other operating systems as well in the
>> future.
>>
>>
>> The aim of this beta version is: - To test if the application
>> is working properly. - To find out if JT9-2 and/or JT9-5 have
>> a sufficient S/N advantage over JT9(-1). - To find out if there >> is sufficient interest in using these modes to continue the
>> project. Therefore all comments, bug reports and suggestions
>> are most welcome via the Blacksheep RSGB LF Reflector, Yahoo
>> RSGB LF Group or directly at on7yd@strobbe.org.
>>
>> 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T

__._,_.___
Posted by: N1BUG <pa= ul@n1bug.com>
Reply via web post =E2=80=A2 Reply to sender =E2=80=A2 Reply to group =E2=80=A2 Start a new topic =E2=80=A2 Messages in this topic (4)
3D"Yahoo!
=E2=80=A2 Privacy =E2=80=A2 Unsubscribe =E2=80=A2 Terms of Use

SPONSORED LINKS
document.write('3D"AOL');
document.write('3D"AOL');
document.write('3D"AOL');
.

__,_._,___
--000000000000f91e35057a53f709--