Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-ma04.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 27AA7380000E9; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 10:17:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1RrscD-0000Iu-5W for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:53:53 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1RrscC-0000Il-Ci for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:53:52 +0000 Received: from out1.ip05ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.241]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1RrscA-0005C6-JI for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:53:52 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApMBALitJk9Olm1Q/2dsb2JhbAAMN4JNgj6sQwEBAQEDIwo6EREJAgkIBAEBAQkWCAMCAgkDAgECATQJCBMGAgEBrnaRQYhmAwQHGAmDFBkEAgoCDQcBBlqCUIEWBIJbin6aEg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,592,1320624000"; d="scan'208,217";a="368423674" Received: from host-78-150-109-80.as13285.net (HELO [192.168.2.5]) ([78.150.109.80]) by out1.ip05ir2.opaltelecom.net with ESMTP; 30 Jan 2012 14:53:43 +0000 Message-ID: <4F26AEF4.5030600@talktalk.net> Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:53:40 +0000 From: qrss User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <007f01ccdeb1$cda0b1e0$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <6269AFC61EFB4E17A5884AF57C3DD948@AGB> <4F25AB0C.30205@talktalk.net> <8CEAD5DD0F8C97A-1E08-163CB@webmail-stg-m03.sysops.aol.com> In-Reply-To: <8CEAD5DD0F8C97A-1E08-163CB@webmail-stg-m03.sysops.aol.com> X-Spam-Score: 1.4 (+) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,RATWARE_GECKO_BUILD=1.426 Subject: Re: LF: 500 opera V Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080009080203080900040008" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30, HTML_FONTCOLOR_UNKNOWN,HTML_MESSAGE 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-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:445206848:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d600c4f26b47c5cf4 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080009080203080900040008 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Markus No Mal, Markus said its his Guess not the Answer:-) Of course Marcus the figures stack up so I have to agree, in fact practice agrees at this very moment as I stare at my monitor displaying the "Challenge". Clearly there are other factors at work to explain my practical experience of ZERO reports of my QRS3 signal over a period of YEARS on 10m, yet multiple world wide reports of my WSPR (when the conditions are right of course) and all the rig has done is QSY and changed mode. We can rule out this being a frequency phenomena too as I have changed the QRS from above WSPR to below.. One of those factors is the human interface, Mal himself said the other day that he has seen carriers come and go on the band but couldn't be bothered to check them out. Then there is the operator who can't be bothered to send a report, with WSPR and OPERA he has no choice, other than to hide away from the truth with no internet connection.. The need for human presence with QRS is alleviated by full time grabbers so we can't fully blame the 'I was in bed when conditions were right syndrome'. As for the Answer lets give it a go, a "Challenge" is running, if anyone notices anything different please don't post it publicly although I will welcome reports direct. BTW QRS3 carries about the same Data as is possible in OP4 in about the same time, variable depending upon the actual Morse characters, it could be longer maybe for Y0YQQ which OPERA could do in the usual period. 73 Eddie On 30/01/2012 11:59, Markus Vester wrote: > Eddie, > my guess is that in the "Opera vs QRSS" challenge, Mal's odds wouldn't > be bad at all: > Graham stated that Opera-8 should decode above SNR -32 dB in 2.5 > kHz (average). Referenced to 1 Hz, this is +2 dBHz average, or about + > 5 dBHz for the CW carrier. > QRSS-10 could transmit a callsign approximately in the same amout of > time. It is received eg. in Argo at 0.084 Hz FFT bandwidth, equivalent > to 0.13 Hz or -9 dBHz noise bandwidth. Thus the marginal Opera signal > would be a very comfortable 14 dB SNR in QRSS. > We typically give "O" reports on QRSS signals above 10 dB SNR. This > would mean that QRSS could be twice as fast as Opera... > Some may prefer the digital decoder from the visual one because "100% > all-or-nothing". In my opinion this is not a benefit, as there is no > way to detect a signal below the threshold, and judge how much was > missing or what type of QRM was present. Of course, with a digital > mode yu don't have to bother investigating spectrograms - > well, borrowing a term once coined by G3KEV, then that's the ultimate > "lazy man's CW" ;-) > Best 73, > Markus (DF6NM) > > -----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung----- > Von: Graham > An: rsgb_lf_group > Verschickt: Fr, 6 Jan 2012 9:50 pm > Betreff: Re: LF: Opera questions > ... > OP31 expected round -38 dB s/n (ave) OP8 ~ -32 dB > G.. > > > -----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung----- > Von: qrss > An: rsgb_lf_group > Verschickt: So, 29 Jan 2012 9:25 pm > Betreff: Re: LF: 500 opera V > > So Mal > > Can you see or hear my 12WPM Morse ident between my OPERA signals? I > doubt it. I could put QRS3 between, that would be a good test. Say a > cryptic message for decipher, one transmission and that is it, if > Opera decodes and the QRS remains unread OPERA wins. > > Eddie > > On 29/01/2012 19:53, Graham wrote: >> R Mal >> Those signals where about 10 db over the limit , so will show >> , OP16 , is about 6 dB lower again. but a decode is a decode.. >> good start. >> 14:44 500 G3ZJO de G3KEV Op4 142 miles -22 dB in SCARBOROUGH >> 136 is being most used at the moment RA9CUA is monitoring >> Show all seen by RA9CUA >> Last report: RN3AGC >> G.. >> >> *From:* mal hamilton >> *Sent:* Sunday, January 29, 2012 6:14 PM >> *To:* rsgb >> *Subject:* LF: 500 opera V >> >> MF >> On 500 Khz so far signals decoded in Opera mode have been visible on >> the waterfall therefore had the mode been QRSS the result would have >> probably been better and quicker in QRS 3 - 10 >> The mode is however interesting and needs little operator intervention. >> de mal/g3kev > --------------080009080203080900040008 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Markus

No Mal, Markus said its his Guess not the Answer :-)

Of course Marcus the figures stack up so I have to agree, in fact practice agrees at this very moment as I stare at my monitor displaying the "Challenge".
Clearly there are other factors at work to explain my practical experience of ZERO reports of my QRS3 signal over a period of YEARS on 10m, yet multiple world wide reports of my WSPR (when the conditions are right of course) and all the rig has done is QSY and changed mode. We can rule out this being a frequency phenomena too as I have changed the QRS from above WSPR to below..

One of those factors is the human interface, Mal himself said the other day that he has seen carriers come and go on the band but couldn't be bothered to check them out.
Then there is the operator who can't be bothered to send a report, with WSPR and OPERA he has no choice, other than to hide away from the truth with no internet connection..
The need for human presence with QRS is alleviated by full time grabbers so we can't fully blame the 'I was in bed when conditions were right syndrome'.

As for the Answer lets give it a go, a "Challenge" is running, if anyone notices anything different please don't post it publicly although I will welcome reports direct.

BTW QRS3 carries about the same Data as is possible in OP4  in about the same time, variable depending upon the actual Morse characters, it could be longer maybe for Y0YQQ which OPERA could do in the usual period.

73 Eddie

On 30/01/2012 11:59, Markus Vester wrote:
Eddie,
 
my guess is that in the "Opera vs QRSS" challenge, Mal's odds wouldn't be bad at all:
 
Graham stated that Opera-8 should decode above SNR -32 dB in 2.5 kHz (average). Referenced to 1 Hz, this is +2 dBHz average, or about + 5 dBHz for the CW carrier.
 
QRSS-10 could transmit a callsign approximately in the same amout of time. It is received eg. in Argo at 0.084 Hz FFT bandwidth, equivalent to 0.13 Hz or -9 dBHz noise bandwidth. Thus the marginal Opera signal would be a very comfortable 14 dB SNR in QRSS. 
 
We typically give "O" reports on QRSS signals above 10 dB SNR. This would mean that QRSS could be twice as fast as Opera...
 
Some may prefer the digital decoder from the visual one because "100% all-or-nothing". In my opinion this is not a benefit, as there is no way to detect a signal below the threshold, and judge how much was missing or what type of QRM was present. Of course, with a digital mode yu don't have to bother investigating spectrograms - well, borrowing a term once coined by G3KEV, then that's the ultimate "lazy man's CW" ;-)
 
Best 73,
Markus (DF6NM)
 

-----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung-----
Von: Graham <g8fzk@g8fzk.fsnet.co.uk>
An: rsgb_lf_group <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Verschickt: Fr, 6 Jan 2012 9:50 pm
Betreff: Re: LF: Opera questions
...
OP31 expected  round  -38 dB  s/n  (ave)     OP8   ~  -32 dB 
 
G..


-----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung-----
Von: qrss <qrss@talktalk.net>
An: rsgb_lf_group <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Verschickt: So, 29 Jan 2012 9:25 pm
Betreff: Re: LF: 500 opera V

So Mal

Can you see or hear my 12WPM Morse ident between my OPERA signals? I doubt it. I could put QRS3 between, that would be a good test. Say a cryptic message for decipher, one transmission and that is it, if Opera decodes and the QRS remains unread OPERA wins.

Eddie

On 29/01/2012 19:53, Graham wrote:
R Mal
Those  signals where  about  10 db over the  limit ,  so  will  show , OP16 ,  is about 6  dB lower  again. but  a decode  is a decode.. good  start.  
14:44 500 G3ZJO de G3KEV Op4 142 miles -22 dB in SCARBOROUGH
136  is  being  most  used  at the  moment   RA9CUA  is  monitoring 
G..

Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 6:14 PM
To: rsgb
Subject: LF: 500 opera V

MF
On 500 Khz so far signals decoded in Opera mode have been visible on the waterfall therefore had the mode been QRSS the result would have probably been better and quicker in QRS 3 - 10
The mode is however interesting and needs little operator intervention.
de mal/g3kev
 

--------------080009080203080900040008--