Return-Path: Received: from rly-ma09.mx.aol.com (rly-ma09.mail.aol.com [172.20.116.53]) by air-ma02.mail.aol.com (v121_r5.5) with ESMTP id MAILINMA024-8c9495204a61bb; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 04:45:36 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-ma09.mx.aol.com (v121_r4.4) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINMA093-8c9495204a61bb; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 04:45:22 -0500 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1LFQIN-0006Lm-1n for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 09:44:51 +0000 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1LFQIM-0006Ld-GT for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 09:44:50 +0000 Received: from smtp-out-1.talktalk.net ([62.24.128.231] helo=smtp.talktalk.net) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1LFQIL-0000ls-QY for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 09:44:50 +0000 X-Path: TTSMTP X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ap4EALaSUUlUDW8+/2dsb2JhbACCb4FmhkwGskNYkUKGQg Received: from host-84-13-111-62.opaltelecom.net.111.13.84.in-addr.arpa (HELO mal769a60aa920) ([84.13.111.62]) by smtp.talktalk.net with SMTP; 24 Dec 2008 09:44:43 +0000 Message-ID: <005e01c965ac$407f88d0$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920> From: "mal hamilton" To: "rsgb" Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 09:44:44 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Karma: 0: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 Subject: LF: WSPR Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_005B_01C965AC.401B6FD0" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=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 ------=_NextPart_000_005B_01C965AC.401B6FD0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Having used practically every mode both as a radio amateur and commercial op= erator morse code (CW) is the most effective method for a radio amateur wher= e only a minimum amount of information is exchanged. I decided last night to check out the WSPR transmissions and was able to se= e clearly Jay's 2 minute interval traces long before it strong enough to dec= ode to text.=20 If the traces had been keyed on/off as in CW or the slower QRS 3 mode I coul= d have read the information directly off the screen and not have to wait age= s for a text decode, therefore I see no advantage with this mode. Regarding bandwidth it is misleading to say that it uses only 6 hz bandwidth= , the WSPR mode is designed to simultaneously accommadate X number of 6hz ba= ndwidth transmissionns in a 200 hz bandwidth therefore if there is adjacent=20= QRM near or overlapping this transmission it is self evident that it will co= rrupt some of the individual 6 hz data streams. For interest I still have a KAM and PK232 data mode boxes plus a box full of= software for soundcard use for all the current data modes. Morse Code(CW, WT) call it what you like is still the most effective method=20= for radio amateur communications, and the slower versions are ideal for weak= signal propagation investigations. Of course WSPR was designed for VHF/UHF purposes where it is probably more s= uited and not on MF/LF in a crowded 3 khz slot where it is more likely to su= ffer from QRM from other more robust modes. For those that derive enjoyment in the data world carry on and have fun. G3KEV ------=_NextPart_000_005B_01C965AC.401B6FD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Having used practically every mode both as=20= a radio=20 amateur and commercial operator morse code (CW) is the most effective method= for=20 a radio amateur where only a minimum amount of information is=20 exchanged.
I decided last night to check out the WSPR=20 transmissions and was able  to see clearly Jay's 2 minute interval trac= es=20 long before it strong enough to decode to text.
If the traces had been keyed on/off as in C= W or the=20 slower QRS 3 mode I could have read the information directly off the screen=20= and=20 not have to wait ages for a text decode, therefore  I see no advantage=20= with=20 this mode.
Regarding bandwidth it is misleading to say= that it=20 uses only 6 hz bandwidth, the WSPR mode is designed to simultaneously=20 accommadate X number of 6hz bandwidth transmissionns in a 200 hz bandwidth=20 therefore if there is adjacent QRM near or overlapping this transmission it=20= is=20 self evident that it will corrupt some of the individual 6 hz data=20 streams.
For interest I still have a KAM and PK232 d= ata mode=20 boxes plus a box full of software for soundcard use for all the current data= =20 modes.
Morse Code(CW, WT) call it what you like is= still=20 the most effective method for radio amateur communications, and the slower=20 versions are ideal for weak signal propagation investigations.
Of course WSPR was designed for VHF/UHF pur= poses=20 where it is probably more suited and not on MF/LF in a crowded 3 khz slot wh= ere=20 it is more likely to suffer from QRM from other more robust modes.
For those that derive enjoyment in the data= world=20 carry on and have fun.
 G3KEV
 
------=_NextPart_000_005B_01C965AC.401B6FD0--