Message-ID: <4002CD7C.76445428@att.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:38:20 +0000
From: "Dexter McIntyre W4DEX" <dmcintyre@att.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <007a01c3d870$20dd0bc0$0500a8c0@charter.net> <304614133.20040112111754@dx.ru> <002801c3d90b$b41134c0$0500a8c0@charter.net> <004401c3d914$cdb10690$1f00a8c0@dellboy> <5.1.0.14.0.20040112162906.037a6718@u0019445.kuleuven.be>
Subject: Re: LF: Re: Re: Re: Re: First WOLF QSO!
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: <owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

I'll place my bets on WOLF getting through QRN when QRSS60 or even a dead
carrier can't be seen.  Not long after Stewart introduced us to WOLF, Lowfer
station TEXAS was beaconing with this mode.  I received good copy 5 nights in a
row when the QRN was very bad.  I looked back at my sent mail and found one
message dated 21 March 2001.  Here is a sample of what I copied every night over
this approximate 1600 KM path:

t: 960 f: 0.000 pm: 496 jm:173               TEXAS AGGIE 79  -
t:1056 f: 0.000 pm: 496 jm:173               TEXAS AGGIE 79  -
t:1152 f: 0.000 pm: 496 jm:173               TEXAS AGGIE 79  -
t:1248 f: 0.000 pm: 505 jm:173               TEXAS AGGIE 79  -
t:1344 f: 0.000 pm: 508 jm:173               TEXAS AGGIE 79  -

Dex


Rik Strobbe wrote:

> Hello John, Dave,
>
> I believe that it might be difficult to compare QRSS and WOLF as their
> effectivity also depends on propagation conditions.
>
> As WOLF is repeating the message over and over at a rather high speed it
> can take advantage of short propagation peaks, this is not the case with
> QRSS where the message is sent a single time at a very slow speed.
> At the other hand QRSS might be better when propagation is rather stable
> but very weak (or for surface wave propagation).
>
> 73, Rik  ON7YD
>
> At 09:57 12/01/2004 -0500, you wrote:
> >Dave,
> >
> >We did some tests a couple of years ago involving two similar stations near
> >each other that were about 1800 km from me. One ran QRSS60, the other WOLF.
> >I think we did the tests for about a week, and found similar results.
> >Neither had a clear advantage over that period. The conclusion was that the
> >effectiveness of WOLF was about the same as QRSS60.
> >
> >While our QSO of yesterday did not fully exercise WOLF's capability, do
> >realize that we were receiving 15 characters in a 20 minute period. QRSS60
> >can't do that!
> >
> >As originally conceived by Stewart Nelson, the "reference channel" could be
> >used to exchange signal report information. Neither that nor real-time
> >decoding has been realized, however. It does remain an interesting mode,
> >with a number of limitations as listed in Alan Melia's message of this
> >morning. For U.S. Lowfers, bandwidth is not an issue, and the potential for
> >anything but very local interference is limited.
> >
> >I do believe that gps-locked slower BPSK has more potential at LF, and am
> >slowly working on getting set up for that. Underline the word "slowly,"
> >though!
> >
> >John Andrews, W1TAG