Message-ID: <4AF7614C.60207@telus.net>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:24:44 -0800
From: Scott Tilley <sthed475@telus.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <027601ca60a2$841cd150$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920> <020b01ca60a9$4495adc0$0201a8c0@Clemens04> <029701ca60af$4f444d20$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920> <4AF73120.6070007@telus.net> <02c801ca60c6$aa5e0540$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920>
In-Reply-To: <02c801ca60c6$aa5e0540$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920>
Subject: Re: LF: Re: Re: WSPR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Hey Mal

80 or 40m for HF QRG?

Scott


mal hamilton wrote:
>
>
> Sri Scott
> I do not use beacon mode only QSO mode. If you want to try xband let 
> me know your QRG on HF. I have worked VE7 on every band from 1.8 - 28 
> Mcs. Only CW or QRS3 tx this end.
>
>
> 73 de mal/g3kev
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Tilley" <sthed475@telus.net>
> To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 8:59 PM
> Subject: Re: LF: Re: Re: WSPR
>
>
>> Hey Mal
>>
>> Would you consider firing up a QRSS beacon for a couple of hours before
>> and during your sunrise in the NA waterhole  137778.0Hz +/- 3Hz?
>>
>> DCF39 has been audible for the last couple of nights and it may be our
>> time to get a signal from EU into the west coast of NA.  I'd like to see
>> how the path works while open and see whether there is a possibility of
>> QSO in the future.
>>
>> Here's your chance at another first...
>>
>> TU es 73
>> Scott
>>
>>
>> mal hamilton wrote:
>>> Two points
>>>
>>> Why waste 2.4 kHz when QRS only needs a few Hz with a better S/N ratio.
>>>
>>> You agree that a faint trace is visible. If this faint trace was QRS
>>> mode only a few Hz bandwidth would be necessary to read the
>>> intellegence and the signal/noise would be superior.
>>> G3KEV
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clemens Paul" <cpaul@gmx.net>
>>> To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 7:23 PM
>>> Subject: LF: Re: WSPR
>>>
>>>
>>>> Mal,
>>>>
>>>>> WSPR reports amongst stns indicate reception reports usually minus
>>>>> dB. Most of these
>>>>> stations are usually PLUS
>>>>> dB with me or very close to that figure.
>>>>
>>>> WSPR refers the indicated SNR to a BW of 2,4kHz.
>>>> So if your receiving BW is say 100Hz your actual SNR is better by
>>>> ~14dB than WSPR
>>>> reports.
>>>>
>>>>> A trace of the signal is visible long before a decode takes place,
>>>>> therefore why
>>>>> not use QRS in
>>>> >the first place.
>>>>
>>>> This may be an issue of your RX/soundcard setup.
>>>> I can assure you that with my Perseus SDR RX,set to a RBW of less
>>>> than one Hertz
>>>> for the display,I can decode every WSPR signal which shows even only
>>>> a faint trace on
>>>> the waterfall diagram.
>>>> At least this is my experience so far.
>>>>
>>>> 73
>>>> Clemens
>>>> DL4RAJ
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: mal hamilton
>>>> To: rsgb
>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 7:37 PM
>>>> Subject: LF: WSPR
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WSPR reports amongst stns indicate reception reports usually minus
>>>> dB. Most of these stations
>>>> are usually PLUS dB with me or very close to that figure.
>>>> So what does that prove. I would say it depends on the RX antenna and
>>>> not necessarily
>>>> propagation. A large antenna yields better results than a small loop
>>>> or active whip.
>>>> When I switch from my 1/4 wave inv L for 500 khz to a smaller 40 m
>>>> resonated loop for 500 the
>>>> signals then do go down to a minus db figure.
>>>> So what is all this all ABOUT ?
>>>> There is also the TX pwr to consider. Two transmitters from the same
>>>> location one using QRO
>>>> and the other QRP will be received at different levels at a specified
>>>> RX location. There is a
>>>> lot of misrepresentation and misleading information by WSPR operator
>>>> A trace of the signal is visible long before a decode takes place,
>>>> therefore why not use QRS
>>>> in the first place.
>>>>
>>>> G3KEV
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>>> Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.55/2489 - Release Date:
>>>> 11/08/09 07:37:00
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.55/2489 - Release Date:
>>> 11/08/09 07:37:00
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.55/2489 - Release Date: 
> 11/08/09 07:37:00
>
>
>