Return-Path: Received: from mtain-df03.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-df03.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.64.215]) by air-de04.mail.aol.com (v129.10) with ESMTP id MAILINDE044-5eb14db9b1f7125; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 14:29:11 -0400 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-df03.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 1477E380000BC; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 14:29:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1QFVwf-00044g-33 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 19:28:09 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1QFVwe-00044X-Ic for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 19:28:08 +0100 Received: from smtp-vbr7.xs4all.nl ([194.109.24.27]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1QFVwc-0003rh-2I for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 19:28:08 +0100 Received: from PCvanAlbert (a80-101-33-132.adsl.xs4all.nl [80.101.33.132]) by smtp-vbr7.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id p3SIS5xS060693 for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 20:28:05 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from westberg@xs4all.nl) Message-ID: <28300D97EC334A41AE716F8B8445B483@PCvanAlbert> From: "Albert" To: References: <5084A620A0804D1CABDAF2587B82CE4C@White> <20D2647CF38F4C73A219F0D0F9B7A41E@PCvanAlbert> <4DB88D89.1070604@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <7BB6C050E347406C9C18641F96C4286A@PCvanAlbert> <001301cc057d$4a02a540$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> In-Reply-To: <001301cc057d$4a02a540$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 20:28:04 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6002.18197 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6002.18417 X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 Subject: Re: LF: Acti 137 kHz Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0044_01CC05E2.C71E6EF0" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE, HTML_TITLE_EMPTY,MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false x-aol-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d40d74db9b1f54f14 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none ------=_NextPart_000_0044_01CC05E2.C71E6EF0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Mal (and others), Back from the hf-bands ? I use WSPR to see if there is any chance (SNR= over - 13 dB) for a normal CW QSO. But with most of the stations QRV= on 136 kHz nowadays this is not the case. If both stations have their= timing right WSPR will decode correctly untill - 30 dB SNR in 2.5 kHz= BW. QRSS; I agree with you that you can see QRSS with the naked eye= (using a computer with the appropriate software), but when using QRSS= 60 or worse you can better do that the next morning after a good nigh= t's rest. I still want to make a plea for WSPR on these low frequencie= s to check the propagation over a longer time. The RX reports are "rea= l" SNR giving 1dB resolution and not generated by the operator reading= an incorrect S-meter, all reports, including TX-power, timestamp and= distance are collected in the WSPRnet database so even after years yo= u can check if the propagation was really much better in 2009. Or even= better study the effects of the propagation over the day in different= parts of the year. Besides WSPR, I use CW and QRSS 3 and 10. My idea= was to create activity days where we concentrate to one of the used= modes on a specific day. Now all our efforts to created activity are= scattered across the different modes. With the result that you are co= mplaining and QSY to higher frequencies. 73, Albert PA0A =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: mal hamilton=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 10:21 AM Subject: Re: LF: Acti 137 kHz Yes if we all use CW, it is more effective and some expertise is re= quired. WSPR is an Appliance Operator mode that does not always decode= whereas CW or QRS can easily be read directly by EAR or seen by the= EYE.=20 G3KEV ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Albert=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 11:21 PM Subject: Re: LF: Acti 137 kHz Thanks Stefan, Are you not active in WSPR ? It would be more effective if we all= use the same modes. (at least on specific days) I like WSPR because= you can clearly and easily see the change of signal strenght over a= longer time at a number of stations. Also QSO's are possible using WS= JT7 in the WSPR mode. Using CMSK is an other possibility to QSO at low= signal levels. 73, Albert =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0044_01CC05E2.C71E6EF0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello Mal (and others),
 
Back from the hf-bands ? I use WSPR to see if= there is any=20 chance (SNR over - 13 dB) for a normal CW QSO. But with most of= the=20 stations QRV on 136 kHz nowadays this is not the case. If both st= ations=20 have their timing right WSPR will decode correctly untill - 30 dB SNR= in 2.5 kHz=20 BW. QRSS; I agree with you that you can see QRSS with the naked= eye (using=20 a computer with the appropriate software), but when using QRSS 60= or worse=20 you can better do that the next morning after a good night's rest. I= still want=20 to make a plea for WSPR on these low frequencies to check the propagat= ion over a=20 longer time. The RX reports are "real" SNR giving 1dB resolution and= not=20 generated by the operator reading an incorrect S-meter, all repor= ts,=20 including TX-power, timestamp and distance are collected in= the=20 WSPRnet database so even after years you can check if the propagation= =20 was really much better in 2009. Or even better study the effects= =20 of the propagation over the day in different parts of the=20 year. Besides WSPR, I use CW and QRSS 3 and 10. My idea= was to=20 create activity days where we concentrate to one of the used= modes on=20 a specific day. Now all our efforts to created activity are scattered= across the=20 different modes. With the result that you are complaining an= d QSY to=20 higher frequencies.
 
73, Albert=20 PA0A          = ;     
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 mal=20 hamilton
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 201= 1 10:21=20 AM
Subject: Re: LF: Acti 137 kHz=

Yes if we all use CW,  it is more effec= tive and=20 some expertise is required. WSPR is an Appliance Operator mode that= does not=20 always decode whereas CW or QRS can easily be read  directly by= EAR or=20 seen by the EYE.
G3KEV
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 A= lbert=20
Sent: Wednesday, April 27,= 2011 11:21=20 PM
Subject: Re: LF: Acti 137= kHz

Thanks Stefan,
 
Are you not active in WSPR ? It= would=20 be more effective if we all use the same modes. (at least on= specific=20 days) I like WSPR because you can clearly and easily see the chang= e of=20 signal strenght over a longer time at a number of=20 stations. Also QSO's are possible using WSJT7 in th= e WSPR=20 mode. Using CMSK is an other possibility to QSO at low signal=20 levels.
 
73, Albert
 
    =
------=_NextPart_000_0044_01CC05E2.C71E6EF0--