Message-ID: <02c801ca60c6$aa5e0540$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920>
From: "mal hamilton" <g3kevmal@talktalk.net>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <027601ca60a2$841cd150$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920> <020b01ca60a9$4495adc0$0201a8c0@Clemens04> <029701ca60af$4f444d20$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920> <4AF73120.6070007@telus.net>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 22:56:10 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: LF: Re: Re: 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




Sri Scott
I do not use beacon mode only QSO mode. If you want to try xband let me know 
your QRG on HF. I have worked VE7 on every band from 1.8 - 28 Mcs. Only CW 
or QRS3 tx this end.


73 de mal/g3kev

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Tilley" <sthed475@telus.net>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: LF: Re: Re: WSPR


> Hey Mal
>
> Would you consider firing up a QRSS beacon for a couple of hours before
> and during your sunrise in the NA waterhole  137778.0Hz +/- 3Hz?
>
> DCF39 has been audible for the last couple of nights and it may be our
> time to get a signal from EU into the west coast of NA.  I'd like to see
> how the path works while open and see whether there is a possibility of
> QSO in the future.
>
> Here's your chance at another first...
>
> TU es 73
> Scott
>
>
> mal hamilton wrote:
>> Two points
>>
>> Why waste 2.4 kHz when QRS only needs a few Hz with a better S/N ratio.
>>
>> You agree that a faint trace is visible. If this faint trace was QRS
>> mode only a few Hz bandwidth would be necessary to read the
>> intellegence and the signal/noise would be superior.
>> G3KEV
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clemens Paul" <cpaul@gmx.net>
>> To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
>> Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 7:23 PM
>> Subject: LF: Re: WSPR
>>
>>
>>> Mal,
>>>
>>>> WSPR reports amongst stns indicate reception reports usually minus
>>>> dB. Most of these
>>>> stations are usually PLUS
>>>> dB with me or very close to that figure.
>>>
>>> WSPR refers the indicated SNR to a BW of 2,4kHz.
>>> So if your receiving BW is say 100Hz your actual SNR is better by
>>> ~14dB than WSPR
>>> reports.
>>>
>>>> A trace of the signal is visible long before a decode takes place,
>>>> therefore why
>>>> not use QRS in
>>> >the first place.
>>>
>>> This may be an issue of your RX/soundcard setup.
>>> I can assure you that with my Perseus SDR RX,set to a RBW of less
>>> than one Hertz
>>> for the display,I can decode every WSPR signal which shows even only
>>> a faint trace on
>>> the waterfall diagram.
>>> At least this is my experience so far.
>>>
>>> 73
>>> Clemens
>>> DL4RAJ
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: mal hamilton
>>> To: rsgb
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 7:37 PM
>>> Subject: LF: WSPR
>>>
>>>
>>> WSPR reports amongst stns indicate reception reports usually minus
>>> dB. Most of these stations
>>> are usually PLUS dB with me or very close to that figure.
>>> So what does that prove. I would say it depends on the RX antenna and
>>> not necessarily
>>> propagation. A large antenna yields better results than a small loop
>>> or active whip.
>>> When I switch from my 1/4 wave inv L for 500 khz to a smaller 40 m
>>> resonated loop for 500 the
>>> signals then do go down to a minus db figure.
>>> So what is all this all ABOUT ?
>>> There is also the TX pwr to consider. Two transmitters from the same
>>> location one using QRO
>>> and the other QRP will be received at different levels at a specified
>>> RX location. There is a
>>> lot of misrepresentation and misleading information by WSPR operator
>>> A trace of the signal is visible long before a decode takes place,
>>> therefore why not use QRS
>>> in the first place.
>>>
>>> G3KEV
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.55/2489 - Release Date:
>>> 11/08/09 07:37:00
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.55/2489 - Release Date:
>> 11/08/09 07:37:00
>>
>>
>>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.55/2489 - Release Date: 11/08/09 
07:37:00