Message-ID: <012501ca3ae3$3c48ed80$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920>
From: "mal hamilton" <g3kevmal@talktalk.net>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <005a01ca3aa1$14a9d2e0$0201a8c0@home> <1E45B0844A034E3EB67E4DAB45C617F6@JimPC>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:44:56 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: LF: Re: Re: WSPR Signals
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



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Moritz" <james.moritz@btopenworld.com>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 6:15 PM
Subject: LF: Re: WSPR Signals


> Dear Chris, LF Group,
>
> Thanks for the reports on the 136kHz signals.
>
> G4AYT wrote:
>>>>
> ...I am having difficulty in seeing the point of some of this when there 
> is
> little in the way of exchanged information between stations. There is a
> place for beacons, certainly. What concerns me is that the casual listener
> tuning across the band probably has no idea there's anybody on.
>>>>
>
> On 500k, there are a handful of fairly local stations and a couple of "big
> guns" who I can work routinely in CW. The information I can exchange with
> these stations is quite limited by the licence conditions; information 
> about
> the station and some pleasant personal chatter. With other stations,
> communication is usually quite difficult, and exchange of information is
> usually limited to callsigns and signal reports. These kind of marginal 
> QSOs
> are usually regarded as more "valuable" in amateur circles, although the
> information exchanged may amount to less than 10 alphanumeric characters
> each way. It isn't really the amount of information, but the fact you
> actually managed to transmit it. On the other hand, WSPR allows a similar 
> or
> greater amount of information (callsign, location, power output for
> comparison with received signal level) to be transmitted routinely at 
> signal
> levels where even marginal CW just isn't feasible. The fact it can be

THIS OBSERVATION IS INCORRECT. ALL WSPR SIGNALS ARE OBSERVED AS A TRACE LONG 
BEFORE THEY DECODE THEREFORE  IF QRS3 MODE WAS USED THE INFORMATION WOULD BE 
READABLE. I HAVE NEVER DECODED A WSPR SIGNAL THAT WAS NOT VISIBLE ON THE 
WATERFALL. IT ALSO TAKES 2 MINUTES TO GET ANY INFO IF YOU ARE LUCKY.

> automatically monitored over extended periods, and the information
> immediately shared via a publicly-accessible database adds a whole series 
> of
> other possibilities too.
>
> Since the start of 500kHz, I have received one or two listener reports for
> CW signals from stations not already on this reflector. On the other hand, 
> I
> have received reports from over 80 different stations in about 18 
> countries
> for the WSPR beacon, most not otherwise part of the 500kHz scene. This
THIS INFO IS ALSO INCORRECT
QRSS CW WOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN AND READ LONG BEFORE WSPR WOULD DECODE IN POOR 
OR MARGINAL CONDITIONS
I OFTEN MAKE LONG HAUL DX CONTACTS ON CW AND QRS3 WHEN WSPR IS NOT DECODING.

> includes stations too far away to receive CW, those who do not have good
> receiving conditions, or those who are just not morse operators. So I 
> think
> it encourages far more people than it discourages.
>
> Cheers, Jim moritz
> 73 de M0BMU

PLEASE BE FACTUAL ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON.
I HAD TWO SOLID QSO'S RECENTLY TO DX LOCATIONS PLUS VARIOUS SWL REPORTS FROM 
OTHERS BEYOND EU
IN THE PAST MY CW HAS BEEN COPIED BY NC1K AND OTHERS AROUND THE EAST COAST 
USA.

G3KEV

>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.111/2386 - Release Date: 09/21/09 
05:51:00