From: "Dave Sergeant" <dave@davesergeant.com>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:00:53 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <4AB7A335.32687.23E9727@dave.davesergeant.com>
In-reply-to: <1680319571.94273.1253539053273.JavaMail.mail@webmail06>
References: <1680319571.94273.1253539053273.JavaMail.mail@webmail06>
Content-description: Mail message body
Subject: LF: Re: defence of WSPR Signals
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


On 21 Sep 2009 at 13:17, Peter Cleall wrote:

> I have always been interested in propagation.
> These WSPR signals are seen by some as repetitious rubbish.

Well having spent a few days looking at WSPR I would tend to fit best 
in the 'repetitious rubbish' group.... WSPR is specifically designed 
for weak signal reception, and there is certainly a case of doing this 
to catch openings to our friends in W and BY land. But at a local level 
I don't think it serves much purpose - it is true that you can 
automatically monitor propagation and QSB rates, but a 2 minute 
sampling time is FAR too long to get any sensible figures from this. At 
my QTH every signal I have copied has been perfectly readable by ear, 
some by a very considerable margin. Once you have monitored for a few 
hours there is little more to be gained and it is a painfully slow mode 
to even consider as a QSO mode.

The USA amateurs are fortunate in having a considerably wider band than 
us. To have what is effective beacon transmissions there for long 
periods in our 3kHz is not the best use of our space.

I shall be very shortly re-configuring my vertical back to its Top Band 
mode for the winter season. If the future of 500kHz lies only in WSPR 
beaconing it is a sad life being an amateur and I have far more useful 
things to do on the other bands.

73 Dave G3YMC

http://www.davesergeant.com