Message-ID: <20100111002406.dhsto910w04gwwc0@webmail6.kuleuven.be>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 00:24:06 +0100
From: Rik Strobbe <Rik.Strobbe@fys.kuleuven.be>
To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: 	<000e01ca9223$6d16ec90$0517aac0@desktop><9afca2641001101102r6252b153lf6d911ee622589e5@mail.gmail.com><004101ca922b$214cf0e0$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf><9afca2641001101153u288ebc3dh81ba03efc09b650@mail.gmail.com>
	<fc7eccec1001101319i48236a3ei5f4d1f5d1d95d023@mail.gmail.com>
	<38A51B74B884D74083D7950AD0DD85E82A1A8E@File-Server-HST.hst.e-technik.tu-darmstadt.de>
In-Reply-To: 	<38A51B74B884D74083D7950AD0DD85E82A1A8E@File-Server-HST.hst.e-technik.tu-darmstadt.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.1.2)
Subject: Re: LF: WSPR, QRSS, CW...
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


Dear Stefan,

what most of us try on LF and MF (137kHz / 500kHz) is to optimize the =20
"efficiency" of their station, within the limits they have.
Some are lucky and have plenty of place to put up huge antennas.
Some build (or buy) high-power PA's.
Some use try new modes.
I do not see any reason who one of these options would be "more noble" =20
than the other.
Just one (fictive) thought:
Two radioamateurs attemt to get the best out of their station.
The first buys a big antenna, a top class tranceiver and a big PA. He =20
makes his QSO's in CW, probably using a commercial electronic keyer =20
and using the build-in DSP filter of his top class tranceiver.
The second one has a homebrew antenna, a modest tranceiver (he hasn't =20
the Euro's to buy a top class one) but tries to get the best out of it =20
by experimenting with new modes, maybe even writing the appropriate =20
software.
Who of this two is the true "amateur" ?

For some reason anything to improve the signal seems to be acceptable =20
except the visible aid of computers:
- buy or build big antennas (and have the property to place them): OK
- buy or build big PA's: OK
- try new modes using "visible" aid of a computer: no way

73, Rik  ON7YD - OR7T

Quoting Stefan Sch=E4fer <schaefer@hst.tu-darmstadt.de>:

> Dear LF,
>
> WSPR offers new dx records for all LF stations, sure. With QRSS/DFCW =20
>  it is the same, compared to CW. Perhaps some stns will successfully =20
>  do TA QSOs nw in wspr, congrats!
>
> What will happen if in 2 years the next software will be available  =20
> with even much better error correction and so on? What, if this  =20
> software is so good that a QSO to VK will be possible?
>
> I mean, does such a software not relativate the value or the  =20
> personal meaning of a QSO? If you reach 5000km with a almost perfect =20
>  software that does record and publish everything automatically, is  =20
> the QSO then done by you due to your knowledge and your motivation  =20
> to built up a good station and the time you (and the QSO partner)  =20
> spent to get that contact? Or is it done by the software? Is the  =20
> feeling about a confirmed two way contact the same in than in CW?
>
> If anyone can run a beacon with 10W TX power into a dipole for 40m  =20
> and WSPR accumulates all contacts over time, then it is just a  =20
> question of time to get a time/moment of optimal propagation on lf  =20
> and so you just have to look if the ODX increased and if not, just  =20
> wait some days longer...
>
> Is that the same feeling than after a difficult but successful CW  =20
> contact? Really?
>
> If we tend to say "WSPR is 5dB better than QRSS, so why are we still =20
>  doing QRSS or even CW???", then we neglect this difference that  =20
> appears to some of us.
>
> For me, personally, WSPR seems to be interesting but not really a  =20
> choice since a amateur radio QSO has something to do with a signal  =20
> that has to be catched out of a noise by a human, not by a computer. =20
>  I want to listen (or at least watch) to a signal that is followed =20
> by  a human to the same time and want to get a personal information =20
> (not  such as 599tu). Anything else is just in the region of a test =20
> that  gets boring if the ODX does not increase any more and fast =20
> enough.  And all the work will be relativated when the next, of =20
> course  better, version comes out...
>
> In my opinion, the more we let the pc do the work, the more we are  =20
> apart to the human/ each other and the faster it gets boring.
>
> Stefan/DK7FC
>
>
>
>