Message-ID: <71759F9064FA4AE68C204FCC7A29EDC2@AGB>
From: "Graham" <g8fzk@g8fzk.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <00a601cdb256$685f2590$6401a8c0@JAYDELL> <50890471.8020907@freenet.de> <000901cdb2a2$284acfd0$0501a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf>
In-Reply-To: <000901cdb2a2$284acfd0$0501a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:57:48 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Importance: Normal
Subject: Re: LF: WSPR vs. Opera
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Yes I think your right Mal,

Of course no one  in there  right  mind would  design  something  anyone 
could use , selective fading ?  Gary and  I  observed  that  even  100 Hz 
qsy  was  enough to  loose  the  signal  on 500k  , that's  why  we  picked 
23  or 85 Hz  shift  for  rtty  , 5  years  ago  and as the  path  is 
stable  , there  is 'no' spreading  gain , hence  ROS -MF  (invisible) only 
needs  100 Hz b/w , live path  tests are all ways  good  for  post  test 
debate

Like one  one of the  US stations  commented  , No one  over  there  cares 
if Opera  is  'kippers banged on a  kettle'  its  fun mode  to  use  , in 
fact  there is  now a  Face  book page 
http://www.facebook.com/groups/operadatamode/   courtesy  of   KB3LSM and a 
user  guide  http://www.obriensweb.com/operaguide.html   by  K3UK , we 
where  a bit slow off  the  mark there ,

Guess that's  confirmation  of  a  TA  decode though ?

G..

--------------------------------------------------
From: "mal hamilton" <g3kevmal@talktalk.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 12:16 PM
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Subject: Re: LF: WSPR vs. Opera

> There does not seem to be much in it but overall maybe Opera has the 
> advange
> because it is more easily generated by a simple old CW TX
> keyed on/off
> Meanwhile I will stick with CW or in some circumstances QRSS at the faster
> speeds ie 3 - 10
>
> G3KEV
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "wolf_dl4yhf" <dl4yhf@freenet.de>
> To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 9:20 AM
> Subject: Re: LF: WSPR vs. Opera
>
>
>> Hello Jay and John,
>>
>> Thanks for the detailed, and carefully laid-out test. Very interesting
>> reading.
>>
>> IMHO Opera was a bit over-hyped in the beginning, making claims which
>> were not justified by *fair* on-air tests, and a test like yours
>> (simultaneous transmission at equal power levels, using the the same RX
>> and TX antennas) brings it back to reality.  Testing one day (or even
>> one hour) with one mode, and the next day (or hour) with another mode
>> isn't fair considering changing conditions (diurnal effects, path loss,
>> QRN, etc).
>>
>> All the best,
>>    Wolf .
>>
>> Am 25.10.2012 04:14, schrieb jrusgrove@comcast.net:
>> > Here is some further info for discussion on WSPR vs. OP.
>> >
>> > On 8/23/12 WD2XES and WD2XNS conducted a 'heads up' test of WSPR vs
>> > OP4 on 136 kHz. The test started at 2230Z on 8/23/12 (in daylight),
>> > continued throughout the night, and concluded at 1030Z on 8/24/12 (in
>> > daylight). Conditions were normal for a summer evening with typical
>> > amounts of static. Distance between XES and XNS is 72 miles.
>> >
>> > At the WD2XES transmitting end John combined both WSPR and OP4 signals
>> > into a common phasing transmitter, amplifier and transmitting antenna.
>> > Transmitted power levels were identical for each mode and very QRP -
>> > 60 mW or less. WSPR and OP4 frequencies were within a kHz of each 
>> > other.
>> >
>> > At the WD2XNS receiving end a common receiving antenna was used
>> > feeding a single GPS disciplined receiver. Audio output from the
>> > receiver was applied to a single sound card / computer setup which ran
>> > an instance of each program.
>> >
>> > Results can be found at http://www.w1vd.com/WSPROP4082312A.pdf .
>> >
>> > Notes:
>> >
>> > 1) At 0230Z John made a significant reduction in transmitted power
>> > level to better explore the weak signal performance of the two modes.
>> > This produced the desired results with 'at the threshold' receptions
>> > through 0420Z. No receptions were noted between 0420Z to 0902Z and
>> > were probably due to an increased static level during that period.
>> > Signals climbed back out of the noise again at 0902Z and reception
>> > continued through the testing period.
>> >
>> > 2) The OP4 results were 'time shifted' to align with the corresponding
>> > WSPR start times.
>> >
>> > 3) There are a few instances where the OP4 results are not spaced on
>> > exactly 4 minute intervals ... this is likely caused by Opera
>> > reporting 'slipping' into the following minute.
>> >
>> > Conclusion:
>> >
>> > WSPR has an advantage over OP4 in weak signal performance. Also, keep
>> > in mind that WSPR requires half the amount of transmission time and
>> > transmits more information. In our opinion, OP8 would be more in line
>> > with WSPR in terms of weak signal performance. In that case WSPR gets
>> > the job done in one fourth the time taken by OP8 and transmits more
>> > information.
>> >
>> >
>> > Jay W1VD  WD2XNS  WE2XGR/2
>> > John W1TAG  WD2XES  WE2XGR/3
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>