Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dg02.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 8D90A38000170; Sun, 17 Feb 2013 07:31:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1U73Nw-0002Ys-BT for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 17 Feb 2013 12:30:24 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1U73Nv-0002Yj-SN for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 17 Feb 2013 12:30:23 +0000 Received: from out1.ip05ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.241]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1U73Nt-0003Sk-KT for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 17 Feb 2013 12:30:22 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApUBAMbMIFECZMxs/2dsb2JhbAANN4wks3iBFYMSAQEBAQIBfgcECwkIBAEBAQkWCAcJAwIBAgE0CQgTBgIBAYgIqyiSN41xgUwBBhCDKgOWLJNfgWo X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,682,1355097600"; d="scan'208,217";a="409248799" Received: from host-2-100-204-108.as13285.net (HELO [127.0.0.1]) ([2.100.204.108]) by out1.ip05ir2.opaltelecom.net with ESMTP; 17 Feb 2013 12:30:00 +0000 Message-ID: <5120CD47.5060300@psk31.plus.com> Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 12:29:59 +0000 From: g3zjo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <5120B1DD.3@psk31.plus.com> In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 130217-0, 17/02/2013), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hi Marcus Thanks for the reply. Yes I am aware of Stefan's TA results on LF. [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: c40596c1cc3306f1877076595a921c57 Subject: Re: LF: Re: WSPR2-15 600m Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050208030009060002000403" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,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-sid: 3039ac1d410a5120cd9c2eec X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050208030009060002000403 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Marcus Thanks for the reply. Yes I am aware of Stefan's TA results on LF. I was particularly referring to 600m. Here I see the same distance being covered covered between 2 stations on WSPR2 and WSPR15 within minutes of each other, WSPR15 reports do infer that they are 'looking down further', but WSPR2 is reporting stronger signals. I also have a suspicion that low ERP takes advantage of the shorter periods of enhancement on 600m and extended times suffer by comparison. 73 Eddie On 17/02/2013 12:08, Markus Vester wrote: > > Does WSPR15 really achieve anything that WSPR2 does not? > oh yes! The SNR limit of wspr-2 is about -29 dB in 2.5kHz whereas > wspr-15 can look down to -38 dB. If you browse the database for LF > last night and sort by distance, you'll find many TA decodes for > DK7FC, almost all of them with SNR values well into the 30ies. > It's certainly worthwhile to invest in frequency stability, even more > so if you are running low ERP. > Best 73, > Markus (DF6NM) > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* g3zjo > *To:* rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > *Sent:* Sunday, February 17, 2013 11:33 AM > *Subject:* LF: WSPR2-15 600m > > Hi LF > > I am not stable enough, or is it the radio, to run WSPR15 on 600m. > > For those stations that can / do it would not be easy to run WSPR2 and > WSPR15 at the same time, within those limits is anyone seriously > studying the results. > > Does WSPR15 really achieve anything that WSPR2 does not? > > Eddie G3ZJO --------------050208030009060002000403 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Marcus

Thanks for the reply.

Yes I am aware of Stefan's TA results on LF.

I was particularly referring to 600m. Here I see the same distance being covered covered between 2 stations on WSPR2 and WSPR15 within minutes of each other, WSPR15 reports do infer that they are 'looking down further', but WSPR2 is reporting stronger signals.

I also have a suspicion that low ERP takes advantage of the shorter periods of enhancement on 600m and extended times suffer by comparison.

73 Eddie
 
On 17/02/2013 12:08, Markus Vester wrote:
> Does WSPR15 really achieve anything that WSPR2 does not?
 
oh yes! The SNR limit of wspr-2 is about -29 dB in 2.5kHz  whereas wspr-15 can look down to -38 dB. If you browse the database for LF last night and sort by distance, you'll find many TA decodes for DK7FC, almost all of them with SNR values well into the 30ies.
 
It's certainly worthwhile to invest in frequency stability, even more so if you are running low ERP.
 
Best 73,
Markus (DF6NM)
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: g3zjo
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 11:33 AM
Subject: LF: WSPR2-15 600m

Hi LF

I am not stable enough, or is it the radio, to run WSPR15 on 600m.

For those stations that can / do it would not be easy to run WSPR2 and
WSPR15 at the same time, within those limits is anyone seriously
studying the results.

Does WSPR15 really achieve anything that WSPR2 does not?

Eddie G3ZJO

--------------050208030009060002000403--