Message-ID: <00da01c965f7$4f3f5d50$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920>
From: "mal hamilton" <g3kevmal@talktalk.net>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <008c01c9652f$5e5d4950$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920> <4951C1F1.3040101@telus.net> <008601c965ba$cc55fe80$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920> <495279D4.9050603@telus.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 18:42:01 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Why WSPR when you can SHOUT! was Re: LF: wspr
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


The software package that I am using states VHF/UHF and this includes WSPR 
mode WSJT 7.02
As a professional Radio Office for a life time I have used every 
communications mode that has ever existed over the past 50 years.
You must have missed this info in recent emails. I make the point again that 
CW has not been bettered in the radio amateur context for exchanging short 
messages, reports etc in a poor signalling environment.
Most of the current modes are reinvented or alterations to what has gone 
before and taking advantage of modern sound cards and appliance operated 
computers. One difference now is that there is less operator involvement the 
PC does all the work and often unattended.
These methods are not amateur radio but appliance operator systems like 
internet exchanges, mobile phones etc.
There will be no amateur radio in another 50 years, keep your ears to the 
ground so many others are saying the same thing.
If you need any advice or help with any system old or new just ask and I 
will be delighted to help.
G3KEV


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Tilley" <sthed475@telus.net>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 6:05 PM
Subject: Why WSPR when you can SHOUT! was Re: LF: wspr


> Mal
>
> WSPR was NOT designed for VHF/UHF and again if you could read you'd know
> that after you had read the documentation I referred you to.  It was
> designed specifically for HF use in a high QSB environment and it works
> very well there.  In fact, it was designed with 30m in mind and the QRPP
> beacons that operate there.  I won't bother explaining further as you
> don't seem to get the basic premises of signal theory and the techniques
> employed for the design rationale of the mode.
>
> Also have a look here for more info on WSPR and the rationale for the 
> mode:
> http://wsprnet.org/drupal/
>
> Before I will engage you further in a dialog about this or any other
> mode I suggest you do some homework and learn how these modes work.
> Like learning CW it takes time and dedication to understand the
> technical and operating requirements for these modes.  Just because you
> can pound a key doesn't mean you have the right stuff to make any form
> of meaningful judgment about this topic.
>
> I suggest you stop wasting bandwidth here and do some learning.   And
> then join the dialog with something meaningful.
>
> 73 Scott
> VE7TIL
>
>
>
>
> mal hamilton wrote:
>>
>> I did not ask a question about filtering !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Oh but you did old man.
>
>> What I said was why use SSB mode which is 3 khz wide for a 6hz/200 hz
>> wide signal when one could take advantage of the receiver narrow CW 
>> filter
> We do!  But it isn't necessary most of the time!!!!  I told you why
> earlier...  I use my 300Hz filter most of the time with WSPR to keep LID
> CW ops out of the passband.
>
>> , and of course this is filtered further by manipulation of the
>> soundcard by software. This is old hat technology and not new.
>> WSPR was engineered for VHF/UHF with plenty of frequency spectrum
>> available and not MF/LF
>
> WRONG!
>> squeezed into a 3 khz slot along with other more robust modes
>> I am not opposed to any particular transmisson MODE but merely
>> pointing out that the advantage claimed by some for WSPR is not
>> justified in some cases and my recent observations indicate that I
>> could have read the transmitted signal had it been ON/OFF CW, instead
>> I had to wait ages for the signal to improve before text printed. This
>> was the case last night with WE2XGR where the 2 minute interval trace
>> was good enough to be read in on/off mode CW but not strong enough to
>> print most of the time due to slow fade(QSB)
>
> You don't have enough experience or knowledge based on you comments to
> intelligently comment on this in my opinion.
>> I might even research WSPR further for comparison purposes but I
>> cannot imagine that I will get a print out first before I see a trace.
> You have pretty high expectations for the mode!  I have never heard of
> any mode that you could decode without being able to see some form of
> trace.  Perhaps you're one of these CW op types that has ESP and has
> QSOs with the little DX stations in your head?  What don't like the fact
> there is something in the world that can quantify reality?
>
>>
>>
>>
>> G3KEV
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Tilley" <sthed475@telus.net>
>> To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 5:00 AM
>> Subject: Re: LF: wspr
>>
>>
>>> If you could read you would do some research at K1JT's wonderful
>>> website:
>>> http://www.physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/
>>>
>>> Joe has laboured for many a year on similar projects and has written
>>> much about his application of the art.  What you will find is that
>>> research into communication theory that started with CW has taken us
>>> here...
>>>
>>> To answer your specific question the filtering is done in software. The
>>> DSP is done in your PC, thereby making filtering in the radio somewhat
>>> redundant unless you have strong neighbours in the passband.  So using a
>>> wide SSB filter and the radio in USB makes for easy math in ones head.
>>> Yes, we digital types use our heads from time to time.
>>>
>>> Often with modes like JT65 used on EME and now quite popular on HF one
>>> wants as much bandwidth as possible in the receiver so you can monitor
>>> up to the entire band in real time.  So lots of raw bandwidth into the
>>> computer is a good thing...
>>>
>>> All BS aside, you may find the technology very interesting to study and
>>> you may find that what you discover is that the spirit of the CW
>>> operator of old is alive and well just evolving with the times.
>>>
>>> CW will never die as it has a rich history but it shouldn't be allowed
>>> to impede the growth of new modes and technology.
>>>
>>> You should build yourself a Softrock SDR receiver or even a small
>>> transceiver kit and witness a true revolution in radio technology.  My
>>> little 40/30m rig allows me to watch the entire band of either in real
>>> time.  With some new software you can monitor all of the CW QSOs at
>>> once...  Pretty cool.
>>>
>>> Not to mention you can plug a key into the little box and do what you
>>> love most and work'm.
>>>
>>> 73 Scott
>>> VE7TIL
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> mal hamilton wrote:
>>>> If recent published info is correct, this specifies a bandwidth of 6hz
>>>> why is USB with a bandwidth of 3 khz necessary to receive this
>>>> transmission.
>>>> Surely it would be obvious that CW mode was more appropriate where
>>>> one could use a narrow filter and dsp processor of a few hertz.
>>>> I have asked this question before but never got an answer.
>>>> g3kev
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.0/1862 - Release Date:
>> 12/23/2008 12:08 PM
>>
>>
>>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.0/1862 - Release Date: 12/23/2008 
12:08 PM