Message-ID: <20090127220708.r1ra6t04fzcoc4o8@webmail4.kuleuven.be>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:07:08 +0100
From: Rik Strobbe <Rik.Strobbe@fys.kuleuven.be>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org, Klaus von der Heide <v.d.heide@on-line.de>
References: <004f01c9809a$708b5c30$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920>,
	<497F3902.1070604@sighthound.demon.co.uk>
	<497F5976.5945.1B872C2@v.d.heide.on-line.de>
In-Reply-To: <497F5976.5945.1B872C2@v.d.heide.on-line.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.1.2)
Subject: Re: LF: PROPAGATION WSPR
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=ISO-8859-1;
	DelSp="Yes";
	format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Hello Klaus,

> On the other hand, WSPR has the advantage of automatic
> recording. But that is not an advantage of the mode, it
> simply is the lack of a corresponding simple program that
> does the same with a QRSS signal.
the automatic recording/reporting ability is clearly an advantage of  
WSPR in regard with propagation studies. And I agree that QRSS or DFCW  
would serve as well or even better if a similar automatic  
recording/reporting would be provided.
But I am afraid that a "waterfall display to ASCII" conversion is not  
simple at all ;-)

> Nevertheless, WSPR is not very near to the Shannon limit.
> I spent nearly all my leisure time of the last year with
> the design of a new digital ham radio QSO-mode HD43 that
> comes as close as possible to the theoretical limit.
> I will send a preprint on request.
I am interested

73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T


Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm