Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:56:52 +0000
From: John P-G <gm4slv@sighthound.demon.co.uk>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Message-ID: <20081228095652.6086f55d@lurcher.twatt.local>
In-Reply-To: <49564E54.2060402@usa.net>
References: <495466BF.9080402@yahoo.com>
	<49564E54.2060402@usa.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: LF: WSPR and CW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:48:36 +0100
Alberto di Bene <dibene@usa.net> wrote:

> I received, in half an hour of testing, the stations reported below.
> Listening to what I was receiving, *NOTHING* could be heard,
> only background noise, as those stations were well below the noise.
> 
> So the claims that CW can do what WSPR can, are *completely*
> unfounded.
> 

As an aside, and again not really applicable to LF/MF, there are other
"soundcard data modes" that give similar "below the noise" performance.

Olivia is one such mode, and I have successfully had QSOs with
stations, getting 100% copy, when the received signal was inaudible,
and invisible on the waterfall.

As much as I'm a CW fan, there's no way a CW (normal speed or QRSS)
contact could have taken place.

It is important in these "below the noise" QSOs to use a recognised
frequency, rather than tuning around listening and watching the
waterfall.

It doesn't surprise me that WSPR can give similar results, as reported
by Alberto.

It surprises me even less that Mal chooses to disregard the main
content of Alberto's report and instead to call into question the Op's
hearing or knowledge of modulation techniques.



John