Message-ID: <20091120231001.q273cf980s048woc@webmail6.kuleuven.be>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:10:01 +0100
From: Rik Strobbe <Rik.Strobbe@fys.kuleuven.be>
To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <20091120141648.8WGQY.1557635.root@mp17>
	<007f01ca6a1b$34a0b8d0$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf>
	<009a01ca6a22$07a90470$0517aac0@desktop>
	<9afca2640911201343q6330c05cxbc250a456fc61952@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <9afca2640911201343q6330c05cxbc250a456fc61952@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.1.2)
Subject: Re: LF: WSPR a QSO mode not just beacon
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=ISO-8859-1;
	DelSp="Yes";
	format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Roger

for WSPR QSO's you need WSJT7, that beside other modes also supports WSPR.
TheWSPR protocol is widened to allow the exchange of report and other =20
information.
This in contradiction to the WSPR software where the format is limited =20
to call-locator-power.
WSJT7 also does not upload to wsprnet.org and the WSPR software =20
ignores any format that differs from call-locator-power.
So a WSPR QSO is really 2-way without any 3rd party (such as =20
wsprnet.org) being involved.

73, Rik  ON7YD - OR7T

Quoting Roger Lapthorn <rogerlapthorn@gmail.com>:

> Now I am unclear what really constitutes a WSPR QSO. Does me getting =20
>  a WSPR database report from XX3XXX and he getting on from me at =20
> much  the same time on the same database constitute a QSO? Or does =20
> it have  to be a "real" QSO a bit like JT6m?
>
> I agree with Rik that an HF contest exchange contains less (mutually =20
>  useful) data than either of these.
>
> 73s
> Roger G3XBM
>
> 2009/11/20 James Cowburn  =20
> <james.cowburn@virgin.net<mailto:james.cowburn@virgin.net>>
> Dear All,
>
> According to the ARRL, WSPR contacts, if verified as two way, will quali=
fy
> towards DXCC awards as they consider these to be a QSO mode and not simp=
ly a
> beacon.
>
> As there is an exchange of callsign, locator and signal strength then th=
at
> was deemed sufficient by the ARRL to qualify for DXCC and as a QSO in a=
 data
> mode much like RTTY or PSK31 for example.
>
> This was discussed at the recent RSGB conference in a session on WSPR.
>
> With best regards
>
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:  =20
> owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org<mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep=
.org>
> [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org<mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@bl=
acksheep.org>] On Behalf Of mal  =20
> hamilton
> Sent: 20 November 2009 19:54
> To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org<mailto:rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> Subject: Re: LF: Re: WD2XES WSPR 136.0
>
> Recently there has been an upsurge in wspr BEACON appliance operators an=
d
> your suggested frequency area is not the place for them. The bottom end
> would keep Beacon acty out of the way. There would still be room for the=
 odd
> EU qrs operator, can't say I have heard many in recent years. The freq=
 area
> 137 - 138 k/cs is frequently occupied by Russian and other EU dxers for
> inter Country working using CW and     QRS and 136.5 - 137 for local CW
> working.
> NA stns wishing to work EU would still use 137 - 138 on CW and  QRS and=
 not
> be clobbered by wspr carriers going ON/OFF.
> I hope you see the logic
> G3KEV
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <w1tag@charter.net<mailto:w1tag@charter.net>>
> To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org<mailto:rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>>
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 7:16 PM
> Subject: Re: LF: Re: WD2XES WSPR 136.0
>
>
>> Thanks for the suggestion, but I doubt it will cause you any more
> interference than it has for the last 5 years. From our perspective, the
> lower end of the band has long been reserved for EU to NA operation.
>>
>> John, W1TAG
>>
>> ---- mal hamilton  =20
>> <g3kevmal@talktalk.net<mailto:g3kevmal@talktalk.net>> wrote:
>> > om I woud suggest you Beacon at the extreme bottom end of the band an=
d
> not
>> > in the middle of the CW and QRS DX portion.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/
> http://www.g3xbm.co.uk
> G3XBM    GQRP 1678      ISWL G11088
>