Message-ID: <000a01c9642f$6feea0c0$8d01a8c0@JAYDELL>
From: <jrusgrove@comcast.net>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <000701c962f1$b79b04c0$4201a8c0@home> <016901c963c8$1c543720$8d01a8c0@JAYDELL> <494EE0A8.5040607@telus.net> <004501c963cf$24a20db0$8d01a8c0@JAYDELL> <000901c96356$9dffe3e0$4201a8c0@home> <002701c96426$21023f20$8d01a8c0@JAYDELL> <007301c9642e$451977e0$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 07:18:45 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: LF: Re: Re: Re: Re: 500kHz WSPR Beacon
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Mal

Thanks for your input. 

So Jim...let me know when you'll be QRV for my WSPR tranmsmissions.

Jay


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "mal hamilton" <g3kevmal@talktalk.net>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 7:10 AM
Subject: LF: Re: Re: Re: 500kHz WSPR Beacon


> Jay
> You are correct in your observations. WSPR is not a productive mode. Using 
> CW and variations thereof would achieve better results in a lot less time 
> and effort, and overall  is not suited to the majority of 500 Khz operators, 
> with limited power, that does not overcome fading of signals.
> The most suitable mode is medium  speed CW where the information can be 
> received on peaks before fading sets in. An exchange of information(QSO) can 
> take place in real time very quickly. QRS at between 1 - 3 sec dots also 
> works at times with slow fades but takes longer.
> An automated mode error correction like amtor would probably work but even 
> this could be very slow with repetive repeats and dropping out eventually, 
> excessive bandwidth could be another problem in a 3 khz slot.
> For amateur radio purposes with restricted low power the most suitable mode 
> for 500 khz is CW.
> In the past I have experimented with practicall every mode availabe on 
> various amateur and commercial bands.
> Radio amateurs only need to exchange a minimum of information like report 
> and do not need an elaborate complicated digital system, whereas commercial 
> systems have to shift large volumes of information and need to be automated, 
> this requires high power, antenna diversity arrays all of which overcomes or 
> minimises fading and poor propagation.
> In the radio amateur context keep it simple and it is unlikely that anything 
> new will be invented that is better than what has gone before.
> The average radio amateur has limited resources and research facilities and 
> barely enough room to install the appropriate antenna for the job, on MF and 
> LF.
> 73 Jay and good dxing
> mal/G3KEV
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <jrusgrove@comcast.net>
> To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 11:12 AM
> Subject: LF: Re: Re: 500kHz WSPR Beacon
> 
> 
>> Jim
>>
>>>Although the band allocations  do not align between UK and US, I think it 
>>>should be possible to
>>>operate
>>> split-frequency to produce a bi-directional trans-atlantic WSPR beacon 
>>> network. Anyone
>>> interested?
>>
>>
>> I'm interested...but the success rate EU > US has been somewhat 
>> disappointing so far. For all of the
>> transmitting time so far I have copied only three lines successfully. 
>> Nonetheless I'd be interested
>> in trying. Before setting things up for a QSO perhaps we should try the US 
>>  > EU part of the link to
>> see how reception is on your end. I'll need some help picking a clear 
>> frequency. First preference
>> would be 508.5 kHz (507.0 kHz dial) although any frequency between 508.0 
>> and 510.0 kHz would be
>> available.
>>
>> Please advise. Let me know early enough in the day and I can have it on 
>> the air that
>> evening...weather permitting, of course. Moderate to sever icing 
>> conditions necessitate lowering of
>> the vertical/tophat.
>>
>> Jay W1VD  WD2XNS  WE2XGR/2
>>
>> p.s. Suggest we start listing frequencies as above to eliminate any 
>> confusion...or just list as
>> '507.0 kHz dial' and forget the actual transmitted frequency...
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.19/1859 - Release Date: 12/20/2008 
> 2:34 PM
> 
>