Message-ID: <13ADD500AB4D4573A468CE3C10E869BC@AGB>
From: "Graham" <g8fzk@g8fzk.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <1680319571.94273.1253539053273.JavaMail.mail@webmail06> <023e01ca3aca$76e19320$0217aac0@jimdesk>
In-Reply-To: <023e01ca3aca$76e19320$0217aac0@jimdesk>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:26:13 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Importance: Normal
Subject: Re: LF: RE: defence of 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


Jim,

Yes your  right, the  onset  of  wspr  activity on the  500 has paved the 
way for  increased activity and  out  side interest, from previous data 
tests ran in the early  day of the  allocation, considerable  interest was 
shown  by data users , however, the  main problem being that all the  'new' 
modes requires audio to  carrier frequency translation and in some  cases 
transmit  chain linearity as well, which  tended to  prevent data operation 
by most  users , the  first  two way rtty  contact  required  the cw-fsk 
mode of a dds controlled transmitter to  produce the frequency shift .. not 
quite its intended function .. but did the job

We may be  watching a re run of the arguments surrounding the suite of  K1JT 
software , in that the point is made that you  don't 'actually'  have a qso 
, so  therefore its not communication in the true  sense.  But if the  need 
to  use wspr  results in more stations re configuring there  transmit paths 
to enable the frequency translation of audio to  rf carrier, then the mode 
has more than served its purpose ?

As Sail gave  way to  steam , so has  Antenna 'amps'  given way to CPU 
'amps'   ... but nothing  wrong with a sail boat ..hihi

G ..

--------------------------------------------------
From: "James Cowburn" <james.cowburn@virgin.net>
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 3:47 PM
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Subject: LF: RE: defence of WSPR Signals

>
> Adding my thoughts to the debate, 500Khz and WSPR has rekindled my 
> interest
> in radio and I am learning lots in new areas.  As a G7 and not an expert 
> in
> CW, if CW was the only means of communication on the band then I would not
> have been as able to participate, experiment and learn as I have done with
> WSPR.  Additionally, the use of WSPR on other bands encouraged me on to 
> 500
> as I was definitely "weak signal" and now I am trying and enjoying CW QSOs
> too.
>
> The database and software allow the analysis and deduction of lots of info
> and data from the reports and their locations.
>
> For me it is not a case of CW vs WSPR (or indeed other data modes e.g. 
> WOLF)
> but far more having a go at them all in a challenging environment and 
> giving
> the old grey matter a bit of a "run out" and learning some new stuff into
> the bargain i.e. self training.
>
> As I have said in other posts, it whacks the pants off 20m SSB for sense 
> of
> achievement and enjoyment (as well as outright frustration!)
>
> I'm sure once we've all got WSPR sorted we'll be running WSJT in QSO mode
> and then we can exchange information as per the original poster's comment.
>
> Just my thoughts and YMMV
>
> With best regards
>
>
> Jim
>
>
> Dr. James Cowburn
> "The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is
> addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you
> are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not
> read this message.
> Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of 
> any
> action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other 
> than
> the intended recipient is prohibited.  Consequently, this email is not
> intended to be contractually binding.
> If you received this in error, please contact the sender, return the 
> message
> as well as its attachments and delete the whole from any computer."
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
> [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] On Behalf Of Peter Cleall
> Sent: 21 September 2009 14:18
> To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
> Cc: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
> Subject: LF: defence of WSPR Signals
>
> I have always been interested in propagation.
> These WSPR signals are seen by some as repetitious rubbish.
>
> If you use , WSPR, the Internet database and your own receptions you soon
> realise that there are subtle variations in signal particularly QSB that 
> are
> different over day/ night paths, transitions at dawn and dusk and
> differences on N/S and E/W paths. Northern stations seem favoured for E/W
> propagation and distance between stations also has an effect.
>
> At last we have software and a process for examining in near real time the
> subtlety of these variations. We can see the signal reports from many
> distances and directions at the same time. I think we will learn a lot 
> more
> over the winter if we continue with these tests. I would like to think 
> that
> in the future we could have some coordinated test times which would get a
> greater number of receiving participants available at the same time.
>
> Personally I have been working on propagation with WSPR for several months
> on 30m. But  the recent activity by Andy, Jim and others has resulted in 
> me
> hunting out my 137kHz equipment that has not been used for a couple of 
> years
> and rebuilding a converter to hear my first signals on 500khz , since the
> commercial stations disappeared. I can see from the other reports on the
> database that I need to do more work on Aerials and i suspect that I still
> have a lot to learn about signals and equipment overload. Thee existence 
> of
> a few known reference signals is essential to improving ones equipment and
> knowledge. I t think this is all part of the spirit of amateur radio for 
> our
> self education in radio techniques which is a major justification for us 
> to
> have licenses.
>
> regards
> peterG8AFN
>
>
> Sep 21, 2009 10:52:38 AM, rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org wrote:
>
> ===========================================
>
> WSPR signals last evening copied from G4JNT, G4WGT, G7NKS and SM6BHZ on
> 500kHz. Also very strong signal during the day from M0BMU on 137kHz.My
> report of your DFCW signal on 137 the other day, Jim, had the wrong
> frequency - sorry about that, added the difference 20Hz rather than
> subtracted from my RX offset - should have been 137.68 of course.Tend to
> agree with Mal's comments, 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.Vy 73,Chris, G4AYT, Whitstable, Kent, JO01MI.
>
>
>



>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.109/2384 - Release Date: 
> 09/20/09 06:22:00
>