From: "Mike Dennison" <mike.dennison@ntlworld.com>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 15:38:35 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <4F1C2D7B.1484.B71D4BE@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com>
In-reply-to: <003101ccd902$2d6111c0$8cd9160a@EFREMOV>
References: <4F1BE531.7370.A577295@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com>, <003101ccd902$2d6111c0$8cd9160a@EFREMOV>
Content-description: Mail message body
Subject: Re: LF: Re: Opera - initial thoughts
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
X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0  
x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d60894f1c34db5329
X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25
X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none


OK, Andrey, all understood.

73 de Mike
========

> >>No DX reports have been receved, although well-equipped stations in
> >>UA and W have been active.
> 
> Possibly, you mean also my station. I will clear a situation.
> The grabber in KO86NP works with the downconverter.
> An exit 30 khz. Therefore there is no possibility to use Opera.
> In Moscow (KO85SV) strong QRM - 9+ on s-meter.
> At night I have received signal UA4WPF only because this station is
> close.
> 
> 73
> Andrey
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >I have been using Opera on 136kHz for about a week now. My initial 
> > findings are as follows:
> > 
> > Around 12 stations have reported on my signals, in G, GW, F, DL, and
> > PA. 
> > 
> > No DX reports have been receved, although well-equipped stations in
> > UA and W have been active.
> > 
> > I have received Russian stations as far as 3500km away.
> > 
> > Several stations are active who are not visible on this group.
> > 
> > The main benefits of Opera require an Internet connection.
> > 
> > The slower Opera32 is more effective than Opera8, which is to be
> > expected.
> > 
> > It is much easier to run overnight tests than with QRSS, because
> > effectively every receiving station has a 'grabber'.
> > 
> > It is easy to run both transmit and receive tests over the same
> > night.
> > 
> > The software changes are now further apart (every few days, instead
> > of daily) and new versions are no longer incompatilble with the
> > previous ones.
> > 
> > Although two stations can independently report on each other's
> > signals, a QSO mode would be a really useful addition.
> > 
> > My conclusion is that Opera seems to be a very useful propagation
> > research tool, and could be a good communications mode.
> > 
> > Is it better than QRSS? Well, it is a useful way to make a two-way
> > QSO during periods of good conditions that are too short to support
> > a QRSS30-60 contact. G4WGT and VO1NA have already demonstrated this.
> > However, I have not yet seen any evidence that it can beat QRSS at
> > the most marginal level. It could easily replace most QRSS3 contacts
> > when signals are good. 
> > 
> > I can see my call on QRSS grabbers in TF, 4X, UA, VE and W quite
> > often and would have expected some Opera reports from these
> > distances. One issue might be that all stations are in the same
> > narrow sub-band, which works fine on HF with very short ground wave,
> > but may be inappropriate for LF where huge local signals compete
> > with marginal DX. This was a problem with QRSS DX, which is why we
> > now operate split frequency.
> > 
> > I shall continue using Opera, but willl also use QRSS for DX tests.
> > 
> > 73 de Mike, G3XDV
> > ===============
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
>