DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=qgEVleuMUYU1vknrR9jBktI2WPzzRtT6fMgw2+mCyyZL854QeoYdGn0819JrpK5kab
         CSKoEzf22qHeSOz/frsqEfyM9pSvNF0TmftSryYTZ2BQh0kVxKKDTGYYBD2srUKruFif
         W/4mRy67Pu0FMA1lA3nBabwRp97r0u51Q8Kzk=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <38A51B74B884D74083D7950AD0DD85E82A1A8E@File-Server-HST.hst.e-technik.tu-darmstadt.de>
References: <000e01ca9223$6d16ec90$0517aac0@desktop>
	 <9afca2641001101102r6252b153lf6d911ee622589e5@mail.gmail.com>
	 <004101ca922b$214cf0e0$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf>
	 <9afca2641001101153u288ebc3dh81ba03efc09b650@mail.gmail.com>
	 <fc7eccec1001101319i48236a3ei5f4d1f5d1d95d023@mail.gmail.com>
	 <38A51B74B884D74083D7950AD0DD85E82A1A8E@File-Server-HST.hst.e-technik.tu-darmstadt.de>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 22:42:41 +0000
Message-ID: <9afca2641001101442j52144c19v666c8d266a316f6e@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roger Lapthorn <rogerlapthorn@gmail.com>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
DomainKey-Status: good (testing) 
Subject: Re: LF: WSPR, QRSS, CW...
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015174c45807a7657047cd72379
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


--0015174c45807a7657047cd72379
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear Stefan,

You are, in the end, correct and I am sure that Mal G3KEV will already be
writing his response in support of you email, HI.

However, my own experience has been that WSPR has made possible propagatio=
n
experiments and equipment designs which, were I using CW, would not have
been possible. Six months ago I believed you needed 50-100W, capacitors
rated at hundreds of volts, antennas that resembled a military tracking
station and a ground system with miles of radials to get anywhere. Then,
with WSPR, I found out that very little was needed: a simple transverter
made with a handful of parts, an ATU made with a small ferrite rod and thi=
n
copper wire, an antenna that is only 5m long and a ground that is,
essentially, the copper pipes in my home. With this modest station I have
learned a lot about MF propagation and had a great deal of real FUN.

So, whilst I agree that a "real" CW or phone two-way QSO is a great and
pleasurable part of ham radio, I do sincerely believe that WSPR, and indee=
d
many other modern digital modes like JT65, JT4 etc have their place on the
ham bands of today.

73s and a happy New Year to you.

Roger G3XBM

2010/1/10 Stefan Sch=E4fer <schaefer@hst.tu-darmstadt.de>

> Dear LF,
>
> WSPR offers new dx records for all LF stations, sure. With QRSS/DFCW it=
 is
> the same, compared to CW. Perhaps some stns will successfully do TA QSOs=
 nw
> in wspr, congrats!
>
> What will happen if in 2 years the next software will be available with
> even much better error correction and so on? What, if this software is=
 so
> good that a QSO to VK will be possible?
>
> I mean, does such a software not relativate the value or the personal
> meaning of a QSO? If you reach 5000km with a almost perfect software tha=
t
> does record and publish everything automatically, is the QSO then done=
 by
> you due to your knowledge and your motivation to built up a good station=
 and
> the time you (and the QSO partner) spent to get that contact? Or is it=
 done
> by the software? Is the feeling about a confirmed two way contact the sa=
me
> in than in CW?
>
> If anyone can run a beacon with 10W TX power into a dipole for 40m and=
 WSPR
> accumulates all contacts over time, then it is just a question of time=
 to
> get a time/moment of optimal propagation on lf and so you just have to=
 look
> if the ODX increased and if not, just wait some days longer...
>
> Is that the same feeling than after a difficult but successful CW contac=
t?
> Really?
>
> If we tend to say "WSPR is 5dB better than QRSS, so why are we still doi=
ng
> QRSS or even CW???", then we neglect this difference that appears to som=
e of
> us.
>
> For me, personally, WSPR seems to be interesting but not really a choice
> since a amateur radio QSO has something to do with a signal that has to=
 be
> catched out of a noise by a human, not by a computer. I want to listen=
 (or
> at least watch) to a signal that is followed by a human to the same time=
 and
> want to get a personal information (not such as 599tu). Anything else is
> just in the region of a test that gets boring if the ODX does not increa=
se
> any more and fast enough. And all the work will be relativated when the
> next, of course better, version comes out...
>
> In my opinion, the more we let the pc do the work, the more we are apart=
 to
> the human/ each other and the faster it gets boring.
>
> Stefan/DK7FC
>
>
>
>


--=20

http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/
http://www.g3xbm.co.uk
http://www.youtube.com/user/G3XBM
G3XBM    GQRP 1678      ISWL G11088

--0015174c45807a7657047cd72379
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear Stefan,<br><br>You are, in the end, correct and I am sure that Mal G3=
KEV will already be writing his response in support of you email, HI.<br><=
br>However, my own experience has been that WSPR has made possible propaga=
tion experiments and equipment designs which, were I using CW, would not=
 have been possible. Six months ago I believed you needed 50-100W, capacit=
ors rated at hundreds of volts, antennas that resembled a military trackin=
g station and a ground system with miles of radials to get anywhere. Then,=
 with WSPR, I found out that very little was needed: a simple transverter=
 made with a handful of parts, an ATU made with a small ferrite rod and th=
in copper wire, an antenna that is only 5m long and a ground that is, esse=
ntially, the copper pipes in my home. With this modest station I have lear=
ned a lot about MF propagation and had a great deal of real FUN. <br>
<br>So, whilst I agree that a &quot;real&quot; CW or phone two-way QSO is=
 a great and pleasurable part of ham radio, I do sincerely believe that WS=
PR, and indeed many other modern digital modes like JT65, JT4 etc have the=
ir place on the ham bands of today.<br>
<br>73s and a happy New Year to you.<br><br>Roger G3XBM<br><br><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote">2010/1/10 Stefan Sch=E4fer <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:schaefer@hst.tu-darmstadt.de">schaefer@hst.tu-darmstadt.de</a>&=
gt;</span><br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204,=
 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Dear LF,<br>
<br>
WSPR offers new dx records for all LF stations, sure. With QRSS/DFCW it is=
 the same, compared to CW. Perhaps some stns will successfully do TA QSOs=
 nw in wspr, congrats!<br>
<br>
What will happen if in 2 years the next software will be available with ev=
en much better error correction and so on? What, if this software is so go=
od that a QSO to VK will be possible?<br>
<br>
I mean, does such a software not relativate the value or the personal mean=
ing of a QSO? If you reach 5000km with a almost perfect software that does=
 record and publish everything automatically, is the QSO then done by you=
 due to your knowledge and your motivation to built up a good station and=
 the time you (and the QSO partner) spent to get that contact? Or is it do=
ne by the software? Is the feeling about a confirmed two way contact the=
 same in than in CW?<br>

<br>
If anyone can run a beacon with 10W TX power into a dipole for 40m and WSP=
R accumulates all contacts over time, then it is just a question of time=
 to get a time/moment of optimal propagation on lf and so you just have to=
 look if the ODX increased and if not, just wait some days longer...<br>

<br>
Is that the same feeling than after a difficult but successful CW contact?=
 Really?<br>
<br>
If we tend to say &quot;WSPR is 5dB better than QRSS, so why are we still=
 doing QRSS or even CW???&quot;, then we neglect this difference that appe=
ars to some of us.<br>
<br>
For me, personally, WSPR seems to be interesting but not really a choice=
 since a amateur radio QSO has something to do with a signal that has to=
 be catched out of a noise by a human, not by a computer. I want to listen=
 (or at least watch) to a signal that is followed by a human to the same=
 time and want to get a personal information (not such as 599tu). Anything=
 else is just in the region of a test that gets boring if the ODX does not=
 increase any more and fast enough. And all the work will be relativated=
 when the next, of course better, version comes out...<br>

<br>
In my opinion, the more we let the pc do the work, the more we are apart=
 to the human/ each other and the faster it gets boring.<br>
<br>
Stefan/DK7FC<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br><br><a href=3D"http://=
g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/">http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/</a><br><a href=3D"=
http://www.g3xbm.co.uk">http://www.g3xbm.co.uk</a><br><a href=3D"http://ww=
w.youtube.com/user/G3XBM">http://www.youtube.com/user/G3XBM</a><br>
G3XBM =A0 =A0GQRP 1678 =A0 =A0 =A0ISWL G11088<br>

--0015174c45807a7657047cd72379--