MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:47:15 +0200
From: Sabine Cremer <sabine@dl1dbc.net>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
In-Reply-To: <E1TBLtU-0007mW-IF@post.thorcom.com>
References: <jkp3nmqlpqmk94117kayy8vf.1347228233637@email.android.com>
 <504E0AD2.7020205@freenet.de>
 <001b01cd8f77$a9b4a1c0$0501a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf>
 <C9ACD81E93F141A5BE9599F0CC2C512F@AGB>
 <504E733E.5000208@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
 <0A4F2E3C-DCA3-4131-88B1-CD6C6440D91A@gmail.com>
 <E1TBLtU-0007mW-IF@post.thorcom.com>
Message-ID: <811fec2151f932d9ce3e69b51b3a7cb2@dl1dbc.net>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.8.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: LF: slow =?UTF-8?Q?WSPR=3F?=
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Hi all,

hm, I am just not understanding why we need a "slow WSPR"? In my 
opinion, WSPR is designed to allow a high channel efficiency, e. g. lots 
of stations can position their beacons in a very small bandwidth. That's 
what we need with only 7 kHz available on MF. Signals can be tracked 
down to -27/-30 dB into the noise - I think, that's ok, too.

I agree with you, Roger, that somebody should ask Joe, K1JT, whether 
WSPR is optimized for the low bands. Maybe his team can invest some time 
in approving WSPR for our needs.

73
Sabine, DL1DBC


Am 11.09.2012 10:31, schrieb IK1WVQ Mauro:
> Hi to all,
>
> it is true what OPERA mode is "secret", but, I think, it is better
> than WSPR for semplicity: on-off carrier , no time synchronisation
> required (then it is possible to made a simple beacon stand alone)..
>
> I read in this goup what DF6NM Markus is working around a
> "indipendent" decoding software ...
> (" .... I'm still working on the receive side, and the first results
> using coherent correlation have been very promising. MArkus")
>
> If this will be, maybe the "solution" of OPERA "problems" ???
>
> 73 de Mauro IK1WVQ
>
>
>
> At 10.07 11/09/12, Roger Lapthorn wrote:
>>Stefan,
>>
>>Maybe it is worth approaching K1JT with a suggestion/request that a 
>> slower version of WSPR be created?
>>
>>It has been several years since WSPR was first released (2008) and 
>> there is a lot of sense in a version with even better S/N performance. 
>> WSPR still has better Internet database support than OPERA and is not 
>> "secret" in the way the latter is.
>>
>>73s
>>Roger G3XBM
>>
>>-- Via my 2.4GHz transceiver --
>>
>>On 11 Sep 2012, at 00:09, Stefan SchÃ¤fer 
>> <Stefan.Schaefer@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
>>
>> > It's a pity that there is no slow-WSPR, e.g. needing 32 minutes or 
>> so. If WSPR (2 minutes FSK) is about as efficient as OP8 ( i heared 
>> so), then it should be a real alternative to the slow DX modes on LF 
>> but not on MF!
>> >
>> > There is a software that plays recorded audio files in a faster 
>> mode, so that QRSS becomes audible. VE2IQ has reported to me last year 
>> about it but i don't remember the name.
>> >
>> > Would it be possible to make our own slow WSPR by using that 
>> software and playing a 32 minute manipulated WSPR at 16x speed, 
>> feeding it to the normal WSPR rx software? The slower code could be 
>> generated outside the program. Would that be a useful test or do i 
>> miss something?
>> >
>> > 73, Stefan/DK7FC
>> >
>> > Am 10.09.2012 19:26, schrieb Graham:
>> >> May be  Mal
>> >>
>> >> But  once again  Jim has  the  answer to this  problem ..if  you  
>> can find his  articles  after  Google  trashed the  uk500khz  news 
>> group ,
>> >>
>> >> I think Jose R  predicts a  6  dB gain  by  changing  to  PSK  
>> from the Opera  on/off  keying  but  that  would  prevent  most  of 
>> the  LH/MF usage
>> >>
>> >> G..
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>Nessun virus nel messaggio in arrivo.
>>Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com
>>Versione: 9.0.930 / Database dei virus: 2437.1.1/5261 -  Data di 
>> rilascio: 09/10/12 20:34:00