spexet%rsch.wisc.edu@BBN.COM> (01/15/90)
In article <37833@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >joshi@cs.purdue.EDU (Anupam Joshi) writes: > >> 2)When I heard DXing programs from some stations >> they talked of reception reports in terms of a >> sequence of numbers between 1 and 5. What exactly is this >> format, and how do you assign these numbers to a transmission ? > >Old style radios had what was called an 'S-meter' which was simply a meter >that showed relative signal strength. Most shortwaves still have some form >of this, although these days many of them are LED based. Basically, it's a >rating of the average strength and legibility of the radio signal, going >from S-1 (very weak, high static, hard to understand) to S-9 (no static, >pure voice tones, equivalent of listening to a local radio station). This >helps the broadcaster figure out how well their signal is propogating and >whether they're able to reach their chosen audiences. > The sequence of numbers referred to here is probably the SINPO code. It is a rather well-established and convenient way of indicating reception quality. The sequence consists of 5 numbers, in the order S-I-N-P-O: [S]ignal Strength: 5-excellent 4-good 3-fair 2-poor 1-barely audible [I]nterference 5-nil 4-slight 3-moderate 2-severe 1-extreme [N]oise 5-nil 4-slight 3-moderate 2-severe 1-extreme [P]ropagation 5-nil 4-slight 3-moderate 2-severe 1-extreme This represents the level of propagation disturbances, or fading effects, for this particular station. [O]verall quality 5-excellent 4-good 3-fair 2-poor 1-unusable I hope this helps. -- -Dennis R. Spexet II UUCP: rutgers!umn-cs!ux.acs.umn.edu!spexet Internet: spexet@ux.acs.umn.edu SnailMail: Post Office Box 14909, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414-0909 USA
bph@CS.BU.EDU> (01/17/90)
In article <37833@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >joshi@cs.purdue.EDU (Anupam Joshi) writes: > >> 1) Is there a difference between SWLing and DXing ? If so, what ? Well, chuq, since you obviously can't read (the evidence is in Anupam's original posting, where he specifically asks people to email him the answers to his questions and not to post) it seems only fitting that you would have installed your mail-rejector to prevent you from being asked to read. Way to uphold the cause of illiteracy in America, chuq. I hope Apple knows that they allow dysfunctional people to sully their image with moronic judgmental errors and infantile reactions to criticism. If not, I know where they live, and they soon will. But here's what you missed: From chuq@apple.com Wed Jan 17 13:10:25 1990 Return-Path: <chuq@apple.com> Received: from BU.EDU (bu.edu.ARPA) by buengc (4.12/4.7) id AA17470; Wed, 17 Jan 90 13:10:24 est Received: from apple.com by BU.EDU (1.97) Wed, 17 Jan 90 13:08:46 EST Received: by apple.com (5.59/25-eef) id AA24820; Wed, 17 Jan 90 10:08:40 PST for bph@buengc.bu.edu Date: Wed, 17 Jan 90 10:08:40 PST From: My Twit Detector <chuq@apple.com> Message-Id: <9001171808.AA24820@apple.com> Reply-To: nobody@apple.com Subject: Mailer daemon error: Mail from sender refused. Apparently-To: bph@buengc.bu.edu Status: R ### Notice: this message has been intercepted by Fido, a ### Twit Detector. You have been defined as a Twit, ### and my master refuses to read your mail. If you ### think this was done in error, you do not know ### my master very well. This message is being returned ### to you because my master has better things to do ### with his time than read it. ### ### woof woof. ### His obedient servant, Fido, the twit decector. ### --- Copy of rejected message follows --- From bph@buengc.bu.edu Wed Jan 17 10:03:11 1990 Date: Wed, 17 Jan 90 13:04:18 est From: bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) To: chuq@apple.com Subject: Re: Questions from a novice Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave Cc: Organization: Boston Univ. Col. of Eng. In article <37833@apple.Apple.COM> you write: >joshi@cs.purdue.EDU (Anupam Joshi) writes: > >> 1) Is there a difference between SWLing and DXing? If so, what ? Golly, chuqqhhhhhch, but the first thing I noticed about our young friend was that he had the gall, the balls, the unmitigated audacity to ask that replies be sent via _e-mail_! I mean, the utter nerve of this little non.net.egotist, to presume to deny you and me our Ken-Thompson-given RIGHT to post answers to the simplest questions which thus prove that we are scholars as well as verbal sluices. --Blair "Get a fucking clue, asshole."
bph@CS.BU.EDU> (01/18/90)
In article <5299@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: >In article <37833@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>joshi@cs.purdue.EDU (Anupam Joshi) writes: My apologies to all on the net, except maybe to Chuq, Charles Guest, and Mike Pennington, but especially to Anupam Joshi, whose posting became rather abused, here. The letters of support are appreciated, but the carbon copies of flames to my friends among the local admins will not be appreciated by anyone. --Blair