Return-Path: Received: from rly-mf03.mx.aol.com (rly-mf03.mail.aol.com [172.20.29.173]) by air-mf01.mail.aol.com (v125.7) with ESMTP id MAILINMF014-9524af74815349; Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:37:36 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-mf03.mx.aol.com (v125.7) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINMF038-9524af74815349; Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:37:11 -0500 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1N7GMq-0001Ou-8f for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 08 Nov 2009 22:36:16 +0000 Received: from [83.244.159.144] (helo=relay3.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1N7GMp-0001Ol-M4 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 08 Nov 2009 22:36:15 +0000 Received: from mail-bw0-f221.google.com ([209.85.218.221]) by relay3.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1N7GMn-0006wx-9W for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 08 Nov 2009 22:36:15 +0000 Received: by bwz21 with SMTP id 21so2932120bwz.4 for ; Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:36:05 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.239.139.143 with SMTP id t15mr817097hbt.92.1257719765139; Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:36:05 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [86.180.89.68] In-Reply-To: References: <027601ca60a2$841cd150$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920> Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 22:36:05 +0000 Message-ID: From: PETER CLEALL To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 Subject: Re: LF: Re: WSPR Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001485f7252ed402110477e3b353 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-IP: 193.82.116.20 X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) --001485f7252ed402110477e3b353 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 In addition to what James has said. Use of the WSPR site more fully can eliminate a lot of the uncertainties being discussed If more stations use the WSPR website/database for reporting then more consistency is obtained, or at least the possibility of allowing some calculation and estimates on what is reported. When reporting then you are asked to keep your tx power low and to enter your TX power in the set up window ,so that we all know what it is. Also on the site there is a section where you can describe your station parameters. peter G8AFN 2009/11/8 James Moritz > Dear Mal, LF Group, > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "mal hamilton" > > > > WSPR reports amongst stns indicate reception reports usually minus dB. >> Most of these stations are usually PLUS dB >with me or very close to that >> figure. >> So what does that prove. >> > > It proves the SNR is higher at the output of your receiver than it is at > whatever other stations you are talking about > > > > I would say it depends on the RX antenna and not necessarily propagation. >> > > So how then does the signal reach the RX antenna? Radio wave propagation > has always to be involved somewhere! > > > > A large antenna yields better results than a small loop or active whip. >> > > Not if the small loop or whip are designed to achieve adequate SNR at the > frequency of interest. > > > > When I switch from my 1/4 wave inv L for 500 khz to a smaller 40 m >> resonated loop for 500 the signals then do go >down to a minus db figure. >> So what is all this all ABOUT ? >> > > It is probably about the different directional patterns of the vertical and > loop antennas, resulting in different signal and noise levels at the > receiver, and therefore different values of SNR. Or maybe your loop just > doesn't work very well. > > > > There is also the TX pwr to consider. Two transmitters from the same >> location one using QRO and the other QRP will be >received at different >> levels at a specified RX location. There is a lot of misrepresentation and >> misleading information by >WSPR operator >> > > This applies also to CW or any other type of signal. It is a bit rich for > someone so shy of giving figures for his TX power to suggest others are > being misleading... > > > > A trace of the signal is visible long before a decode takes place, >> therefore why not use QRS in the first place. >> > > Because a trace of signal is just that; a decoded WSPR signal contains > station ID, location, and power information, making it much more useful, > without the operator actually having to watch a computer screen 24 hours a > day. > > > Cheers, Jim Moritz > 73 de M0BMU > > --001485f7252ed402110477e3b353 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In addition to what James has said.

Use of= the WSPR site more fully can eliminate a lot of the uncertainties being= discussed


If more stations use th= e WSPR website/database for reporting then more consistency is obtained,= or at least the possibility of allowing some calculation and estimates on= what is reported.=A0

When reporting then you are asked to keep your tx powe= r low and to enter your TX power in the set up window ,so that we all know= what it is. Also on the site there is a section where you can describe yo= ur station parameters.


peter G8AFN

<= div>

2009/11/8 James Moritz <james.mor= itz@btopenworld.com>
Dear Mal, LF Group,

----- Original Message ----- From: "mal hamilton" <g3kevmal@talktalk.net= >



WSPR reports amongst stns indicate reception reports usually minus dB. Mos= t of these stations are usually PLUS dB >with me or very close to that= figure.
So what does that prove.

It proves the SNR is higher at the output of your receiver than it is at= whatever other stations you are talking about



I would say it depends on the RX antenna and not necessarily propagation.<= br>

So how then does the signal reach the RX antenna? Radio wave propagation= has always to be involved somewhere!



A large antenna yields better results than a small loop or active whip.

Not if the small loop or whip are designed to achieve adequate SNR at the= frequency of interest.



When I switch from my 1/4 wave inv L for 500 khz to a smaller 40 m resonat= ed loop for 500 the signals then do go >down to a minus db figure.
So what is all this all ABOUT ?

It is probably about the different directional patterns of the vertical an= d loop antennas, resulting in different signal and noise levels at the rec= eiver, and therefore different values of SNR. Or maybe your loop just does= n't work very well.



There is also the TX pwr to consider. Two transmitters from the same locat= ion one using QRO and the other QRP will be >received at different leve= ls at a specified RX location. There is a lot of misrepresentation and mis= leading information by >WSPR operator

This applies also to CW or any other type of signal. It is a bit rich for= someone so shy of giving figures for his TX power to suggest others are= being misleading...



A trace of the signal is visible long before a decode takes place, therefo= re why not use QRS in the first place.

Because a trace of signal is just that; a decoded WSPR signal contains sta= tion ID, location, and power information, making it much more useful, with= out the operator actually having to watch a computer screen 24 hours a day= .


Cheers, Jim Moritz
73 de M0BMU


--001485f7252ed402110477e3b353--