Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dk05.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 69EA138000097; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 10:48:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1RrtIC-0000Z3-QY for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:37:16 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1RrtIC-0000Yu-6V for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:37:16 +0000 Received: from out1.ip06ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.242]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1RrtIA-0005Zg-H3 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:37:16 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnsCAEy4Jk9Olm1Q/2dsb2JhbAAMN4JNgj6ZAJNDAQEBAQMjCjoeBAkCCQgEAQEBCR4DAgIPAjUJCBMGAgEBrm2RQIhmAwQHGAmDFBkEAgoCDQcBBlqCUIEWBIJbin6aEg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,592,1320624000"; d="scan'208,217";a="525849706" Received: from host-78-150-109-80.as13285.net (HELO [192.168.2.5]) ([78.150.109.80]) by out1.ip06ir2.opaltelecom.net with ESMTP; 30 Jan 2012 15:37:08 +0000 Message-ID: <4F26B922.708@talktalk.net> Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:37:06 +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$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <6269AFC61EFB4E17A5884AF57C3DD948@AGB> <4F25AB0C.30205@talktalk.net> <8CEAD5DD0F8C97A-1E08-163CB@webmail-stg-m03.sysops.aol.com> <001901ccdf55$bd4b88c0$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> In-Reply-To: <001901ccdf55$bd4b88c0$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> 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="------------030301010007000906060401" 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: 0:2:467517056:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1db4094f26bbc756e0 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030301010007000906060401 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hey Mal I hope you are sitting down. I must tell you, I had a Morse QSO c.12WPM on 500kHz yesterday morning with G3XIZ and very enjoyable it was too. My QRP Rig is my own design home built with a home made Morse Key, the Antenna, 5m inverted L is as big as I can accommodate, it took a lot of engineering to get the efficiency on 500kHz that it has. Question, at what point when I start to key that TX from a PIC, with my own programming, conceived by me, with a Data mode do I become a worthless Back Box Appliance Operator for whom there is no room on 500kHz. Eddie On 30/01/2012 13:47, mal hamilton wrote: > Eddie Om > There is your answer from a MAN that knows > g3kev > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Markus Vester > *To:* rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > > *Sent:* Monday, January 30, 2012 11:59 AM > *Subject:* Re: LF: 500 opera V > > 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 > --------------030301010007000906060401 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hey Mal

I hope you are sitting down. I must tell you, I had a Morse QSO c.12WPM on 500kHz yesterday morning with G3XIZ and very enjoyable it was too.

My QRP Rig is my own design home built with a home made Morse Key, the Antenna, 5m inverted L is as big as I can accommodate, it took a lot of engineering to get the efficiency on 500kHz that it has.

Question, at what point when I start to key that TX from a PIC, with my own programming, conceived by me, with a Data mode do I become a worthless Back Box Appliance Operator for whom there is no room on 500kHz.

Eddie

 
On 30/01/2012 13:47, mal hamilton wrote:
Eddie Om
There is your answer from a MAN that knows
g3kev
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: LF: 500 opera V

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
 


--------------030301010007000906060401--