Return-Path: X-Spam-DCC: paranoid 1290; Body=2 Fuz1=2 Fuz2=2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on lipkowski.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL, HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=3.1.3 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by paranoid.lipkowski.org (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id tAED7kw3001016 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 14:07:46 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1ZxaUU-0004v9-30 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 13:03:38 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1ZxaUT-0004v0-El for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 13:03:37 +0000 Received: from smtpout3.wanadoo.co.uk ([80.12.242.59] helo=smtpout.wanadoo.co.uk) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1ZxaTT-0005IJ-Sl for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 13:03:36 +0000 Received: from AGB ([95.150.81.41]) by mwinf5d35 with ME id hR2D1r00H0tVK6703R2EgX; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 14:02:17 +0100 X-ME-Helo: AGB X-ME-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 14:02:17 +0100 X-ME-IP: 95.150.81.41 Message-ID: <0A7B86C5D6DC46E2BFCE3A3617813A31@AGB> From: "Graham" To: References: <579355A36AEE9D4FA555C45D556003AB1B286613@servigilant.vigilant.local> <0ADAA2ADD4844DA1B2EC8471B7B28629@AGB> <3C386F463D28484AA74889615A91FD91@PCFausto> In-Reply-To: <3C386F463D28484AA74889615A91FD91@PCFausto> Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 13:02:13 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416 X-Scan-Signature: 0fb96da3ad43bfecb54604b5b5e77385 Subject: Re: LF: RE: Re: FR5ZX on MF WSPR Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0045_01D11EDC.AE5FFE20" X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 10.1.3.10 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 5062 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0045_01D11EDC.AE5FFE20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Fausto Well, for a long time the minimal frequency shift in wspr was = a mystery as to how exactly it extracted data when the Doppler = spread was many times the shift on hf and as to why time and a = list of call signs was so important, when all the other data modes = , synchronised from the recovered signal . VW emission software = uses similar concepts =20 Yes your right , correlation , deep search , Dynamic , Ooop's , = Call it what you like, 'has' to know what is in the noise , so = it can look for the pattern. Dynamic is provided in the Opera = system , 'only' for the 477 and 136 bands only , as a second = pass , low level detector, set at ~ -5 / - 6 dB lower . =20 As the name implies , the system is dynamically engaged , and the = out put from the two systems are segregated , one being the Opera = data decode , with frequency , s/n and % fade . the other is = stamped , 'Deep search' with s/n and frequency. however , as you = note , other systems , fail to make the distinction , or provide a = solution to the problem. [ is it a problem ?VW sold may cars ] As Opera is not time locked , has no need , the start times of = Tx stations are 'random' so the simple solution to test if a = dynamic detection is real or false , is compare the RX time = stamp. By elapse time from a Opera decode + frequency=20 By compare to other Dynamic detections + frequency=20 Manually from TX beacon ,=20 The issue remains unaddressed in the other systems , compared to = the random pixilated out put from the traditional 'QRSS' 'part' = call sign guessing game , Dynamic provides a robust reliable = inaction of low s/n detection and is listed in ADIF . The system will work with U3/PIC keyed TX and RX linked to stand = alone PC , to achieve the full range of features , when using the = Dynamic low s/n spots , at the very least the Rx PC needs to be = linked to the WWW , to both upload your local spot , so others = are able to use the time stamp and receive the output from your = own and other users via the 'system' , with the '??' check or not = .... Its true, the beacon will plot the path between two stations , = but for most of the 477/136 stations the s/n levels are so low, = its not possible to 'hear' the other for a live qso , = opportunities exist for 477 , but 136 levels are generally well = below normal CW or data mode's, I worked V01NA from GB4FPR with = 60 watts in live CW on 502 k , but may be the 750 ft long wire = over the sea helped , : ) This was from the home qth , with 40 x 60 ft inv L and 250 watts = - possibly 20 dB short of CW qso level .. https://rosmodem.wordpress.com/2011/02/14/the-blue-ribbon-fastest-live-da= ta-to-cross-the-atlantic/ May be Luis can get JRos to put the data mode back in the ROS = package =20 73-Graham G0NBD =20 From: Fausto Coletti=20 Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2015 9:57 AM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Subject: Re: LF: RE: Re: FR5ZX on MF WSPR Hi Graham and all,=20 I do not know if it is possible and I do not know if Opera use the same = decoding sistem of JT65 but=20 for you it is possible that a ham receive some qsl card for 144 MHz EME = qso in JT65 when in his life=20 he never made a QSO via EME in 144 MHz.=20 Permit me some doubt about these "deep search" systems.=20 It seems very similar to those that make QSOs with callbbok.=20 As you can see I do not like the digital modes because I want to be a = fun to make a QSO and not my computer.=20 A digital QSO is a little how to send an SMS to a pretty girl instead of = taking her out to dinner.=20 Ok for the importance of automated systems for understanding the = propagation but when it is determined=20 that for a direction it is possible a QSO with traditional systems why = do not make a real QSO?=20 Every day when I read the email I see dozens and dozens of WSPR reports, = dozens and dozens of OPERA reports...=20 I rarely see a report of a real QSO,dozens and dozens of computers that = work all night while operators are sleeping.=20 Maybe I'm a purist as says Luis but honestly the satisfaction of a CW = QSO made by me and my key between the fingers,=20 although I am a average operator, is unmatched.=20 Maybe I'll never make a MF QSO with the US or Australia but I think that = if on the other side there is a well-equipped=20 station is not impossible.=20 Take the example of EA5DOM, yesterday for the first time used the CW on = 630m, does not seem to have had many=20 difficulties to make QSOs at distances similar to the WSPR reports that = has received so far.=20 Please forgive me, but this morning I woke up so ...=20 73, Fausto IK4NMF=20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Graham=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 7:48 PM Subject: Re: LF: RE: Re: FR5ZX on MF WSPR ''Not considered "real" decodes by the purists and so, garbaje = qualifyed'' So the belief structure is . ''Its possible for two stations to randomly detect the same = station call sign at exactly the same time'' =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0045_01D11EDC.AE5FFE20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Fausto
 
Well,  for  a  long time  the  = minimal  =20 frequency shift  in wspr  was  a  mystery as = to =20 how  exactly  it extracted  data  when the =20 Doppler  spread was  many times the  shift  on = hf  and=20 as to  why time  and a  list of  call  = signs  was=20 so important, when all  the  other data  modes  ,=20 synchronised  from the  recovered  signal .  = VW =20 emission software  uses  similar concepts 
 
Yes your right ,  correlation  , deep  search = , =20 Dynamic  , Ooop's  , Call  it  what  you  = like,=20 'has'  to  know  what  is in the  noise , = so =20 it  can  look  for the  pattern. Dynamic is = provided =20 in the  Opera  system , 'only' for the =20 477  and  136  bands only ,  as a  = second  =20 pass , low  level  detector, set  at  ~ -5 / - 6 dB=20 lower  . 
 
As the  name implies , the  system is  = dynamically =20 engaged ,  and the  out put  from the  two  = systems=20 are  segregated , one being the  Opera  data  decode = , =20 with frequency ,  s/n and  % fade . the other = is =20 stamped , 'Deep search'  with  s/n and frequency.  = however , as=20 you  note ,  other  systems , fail to  make = the =20 distinction , or  provide a  solution to  the  = problem. [ is=20 it a  problem ?VW sold may cars ]
 
As  Opera  is not  time  locked ,  has no = need=20 ,  the  start  times  of  Tx stations  = are =20 'random'  so  the  simple   solution  = to =20 test if a  dynamic  detection  is   real = or  false=20 , is  compare the  RX time  stamp.
 
By  elapse  time  from a  Opera  decode = + =20 frequency
By  compare to  other  Dynamic  detections + = frequency=20
Manually  from  TX beacon ,
 
 The  issue remains  unaddressed in = the =20 other  systems , compared to the  random pixilated = out=20 put  from the  traditional  'QRSS'  'part' = call =20 sign  guessing  game ,  Dynamic provides a robust=20  reliable inaction of  low s/n detection  and  = is =20 listed  in ADIF .
 
The  system will  work  with  U3/PIC  = keyed =20 TX and  RX linked to  stand alone  PC , to  achieve=20 the  full  range of  features , when using the =20 Dynamic  low s/n spots , at the  very least  the  Rx = PC=20 needs  to be  linked to the  WWW , to  both  = upload=20 your local  spot  , so  others  are able to  = use=20 the  time  stamp  and  receive the  = output  from=20 your  own  and other users via the  = 'system'   ,=20 with the  '??'  check  or not ....
 
Its true, the  beacon will  plot the  path =20 between  two  stations ,  but  for  most of = the =20 477/136  stations the  s/n  levels  are  so = low, =20 its not  possible  to  'hear'  the  other  = for   a  live  qso , opportunities exist =20 for  477 , but  136  levels are  generally = well =20 below  normal  CW or data  mode's,  I worked  = V01NA=20 from GB4FPR  with  60 watts  in live  CW  on = 502 k ,=20 but  may be the  750 ft long wire  over the  = sea =20 helped , : )
 
This was from  the  home qth , with  40 x 60 = ft  inv=20 L  and  250 watts  -  possibly  20 dB  = short=20 of   CW qso level ..
 
https://rosmodem.wordpress.com/2011/02= /14/the-blue-ribbon-fastest-live-data-to-cross-the-atlantic/
 
  May be  Luis can  get  JRos to  put = the  data  mode back  in the  ROS  = package 
 
73-Graham
G0NBD
 
 
 
   

From: Fausto Coletti
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2015 9:57 AM
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= =20
Subject: Re: LF: RE: Re: FR5ZX on MF WSPR

Hi Graham and all,
 
I do not know if it is possible and I = do not know=20 if Opera use the same decoding sistem of JT65 but
for you it is possible that a ham = receive some qsl=20 card for 144 MHz EME qso in JT65 when in=20 his life
he never = made a QSO via EME = in 144 MHz.=20
 
Permit me some=20 doubt about these "deep search" systems. =
It=20 seems very similar to those that=20 make QSOs with = callbbok.
 
As you can see I do not like = the digital modes because I want to be a fun to make a QSO and not=20 my computer.=20
A digital QSO is a = little=20 how to send an SMS to=20 a pretty girl instead = of taking her out to dinner.=20
 
Ok for the=20 importance of automated=20 systems for understanding=20 the propagation but = when it=20 is determined=20
that for a=20 direction it is possible a=20 QSO with traditional = systems why do not make a real QSO?=20
 =
Every day=20 when I read the email I see dozens=20 and dozens of WSPR = reports, dozens and = dozens=20 of OPERA reports...=20
I = rarely=20 see a report of = a real QSO,dozens = and dozens of computers that=20 work all night while operators are=20 sleeping. =
Maybe I'm a purist as says Luis but=20 honestly the satisfaction of a CW QSO made by me and my key between the=20 fingers,=20
although I am a = average operator, is = unmatched.=20
 
Maybe I'll never=20 make a MF QSO with the US or Australia but I=20 think that if on the other=20 side there is a well-equipped=20
station is=20 not impossible.=20
 
Take the example = of EA5DOM, = yesterday for the first time = used the CW on=20 630m, does not = seem=20 to have had many=20
difficulties to make QSOs=20 at distances similar = to the WSPR = reports that  has received so = far.=20
 
Please=20 forgive me, but this morning I = woke=20 up so ...=20
 
73, Fausto = IK4NMF=20
 
----- Original Message ----- =
From:=20 Graham
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 = 7:48=20 PM
Subject: Re: LF: RE: Re: FR5ZX = on MF=20 WSPR

''Not considered "real" decodes by = the purists=20 and so, garbaje qualifyed''
 
So  the  belief  = structure =20 is  .
 
 ''Its possible  = for  two  =20 stations  to  randomly  detect the  same =20 station  call  sign  at  exactly  the =20 same  time''   
 
------=_NextPart_000_0045_01D11EDC.AE5FFE20--