Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+RE\:\s+\[rsgb_lf_group\]\s+Re\:\s+LF\:\s+slow\s+WSPR\?\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. Re: LF: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR? (score: 1)
Author: "Graham" <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 11:22:53 +0100
SNR > reports 3 dB lower than actually present in the signal path. Unfortunately s/n levels are not that simple to determine or set , the original ROS , later Opera mode's where aligned with FLDIGI t
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2012-09/msg00114.html (22,607 bytes)

2. Re: LF: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR? (score: 1)
Author: "Graham" <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 00:41:28 +0100
''Apparently Opera is functioning as a beaconing system, and nothing else. You basically transmit one information ("I'm there"), and you get a reply by the internet ("I see you"). Am I missing someth
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2012-09/msg00178.html (20,161 bytes)

3. Re: LF: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR? (score: 1)
Author: Markus Vester <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 12:39:01 -0400 (EDT)
Hi Graham, LF, wow such a flood of incoming mails... BPSK vs. ASK? Unfiltered PSK _can_ be sent by a nonlinear transmitter, it's only very unfriendly to others due to the spectral sidebands from the
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2012-09/msg00254.html (17,350 bytes)

4. LF: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR? (score: 1)
Author: Sabine Cremer <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 09:46:58 +0200
Hi Rik, thank you very much for the link to the results of your study. I was told often, that Opera is much more sensitive than WSPR. It was interesting to learn that this might be the result of Oper
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2012-09/msg00260.html (21,269 bytes)

5. Re: LF: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR? (score: 1)
Author: "Graham" <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:15:45 +0100
Well its mostly a silly argument as the systems are totally different , in terms of data processing and the operation of the decoder and the technical level of the equipment needed to tx/rx the mode
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2012-09/msg00594.html (24,404 bytes)

6. Re: LF: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR? (score: 1)
Author: "mal hamilton" <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 19:36:10 +0100
Never replace the MORSE KEY, you do at your peril !! Other modes come and go but MORSE lives on All Radio Operators know this. G3KEV -- Original Message -- From: [email protected] Markus Vester To
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2012-09/msg00595.html (18,204 bytes)

7. Re: LF: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR? (score: 1)
Author: "C. Groeger" <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 21:01:21 +0200
Thanks, mal for these wise words! Df5qg (Homebrew & CW) Christian Groeger
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2012-09/msg00618.html (15,921 bytes)

8. Re: LF: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR? (score: 1)
Author: Sabine Cremer <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:35:43 +0200
Thanks for the hints, Graham, I will try to keep all in my memory! 73 Sabine, DL1DBC Am 12.09.2012 12:22, schrieb Graham: SNR > reports 3 dB lower than actually present in the signal path. Unfortunat
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2012-09/msg00722.html (23,962 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu