Message-ID: <49528AE2.8020508@telus.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:17:54 -0800
From: Scott Tilley <sthed475@telus.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <008c01c9652f$5e5d4950$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920> <4951C1F1.3040101@telus.net> <008601c965ba$cc55fe80$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920> <495279D4.9050603@telus.net> <00da01c965f7$4f3f5d50$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920>
In-Reply-To: <00da01c965f7$4f3f5d50$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920>
Subject: LF: Re: Why WSPR when you can SHOUT! 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Mal

I couldn't care less about your out of date qualifications as your 
profession has been replaced by a black box designed by men like me...  
That's probably what bugs you the most and what drives your seemingly 
pointless rants and self aggrandizing behaviour as your skills aren't a 
viable means to support oneself anymore...

I have no issues with CW as a mode and periodically enjoy using it 
myself, it is just one FUN aspect of the hobby.

If you dig into the evolution of WSPR as a mode you'll discover that it 
was only very recently added to the WSJT software package and there 
exists a separate software package that includes WSPR only, which has 
evolved in numerous revisions since it was released last spring.  Inside 
WSJT you will find various modes optimized for mostly VHF/UHF modes like 
meteor scatter, troposcatter and EME.  On air testing has demonstrated 
that WSPR is not a good mode for VHF/UHF due to a number of reasons.  
Have a look at some of the old threads on the topic from last summer 
which you'll likely find on WSPR.net. 

The key to understanding is that all of these modes are tailor made for 
specific bands and operating conditions and operational purposes.  Hence 
the recent 'experiments' on 600m with WSPR.  In my opinion, what you may 
be noticing is the need for an adjustment in the mode's characteristics 
to deal with long duration fading on the MF and LF bands. As I observed 
similar results on Jay's signal the other night.

Everything in life and engineering is a rehash of the old.  I for one 
collect old engineering books and journals to research how things where 
done in the past to better understand how to use modern technology to 
deal with present day problems.  In my opinion, one must close the loop 
on how things where done in the past to evolve into the future.  The 
math never changes only the implementation of the math, that's what 
makes it interesting!

I don't share your pessimistic view of the future or your limited 
interpretation of what amateur radio is or isn't. I choose to accept 
anyone that has any interest in the hobby and encourage them to explore 
what is of interest to them using whatever mode, equipment or technique 
as long as its legal and done with courtesy.  Amateur radio is evolving 
and it may not be what you want it to be but it is what it is...

73 Scott
VE7TIL












mal hamilton wrote:
>
> The software package that I am using states VHF/UHF and this includes 
> WSPR mode WSJT 7.02
> As a professional Radio Office for a life time I have used every 
> communications mode that has ever existed over the past 50 years.
> You must have missed this info in recent emails. I make the point 
> again that CW has not been bettered in the radio amateur context for 
> exchanging short messages, reports etc in a poor signalling environment.
> Most of the current modes are reinvented or alterations to what has 
> gone before and taking advantage of modern sound cards and appliance 
> operated computers. One difference now is that there is less operator 
> involvement the PC does all the work and often unattended.
> These methods are not amateur radio but appliance operator systems 
> like internet exchanges, mobile phones etc.
> There will be no amateur radio in another 50 years, keep your ears to 
> the ground so many others are saying the same thing.
> If you need any advice or help with any system old or new just ask and 
> I will be delighted to help.
> G3KEV
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Tilley" <sthed475@telus.net>
> To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 6:05 PM
> Subject: Why WSPR when you can SHOUT! was Re: LF: wspr
>
>
>> Mal
>>
>> WSPR was NOT designed for VHF/UHF and again if you could read you'd know
>> that after you had read the documentation I referred you to.  It was
>> designed specifically for HF use in a high QSB environment and it works
>> very well there.  In fact, it was designed with 30m in mind and the QRPP
>> beacons that operate there.  I won't bother explaining further as you
>> don't seem to get the basic premises of signal theory and the techniques
>> employed for the design rationale of the mode.
>>
>> Also have a look here for more info on WSPR and the rationale for the 
>> mode:
>> http://wsprnet.org/drupal/
>>
>> Before I will engage you further in a dialog about this or any other
>> mode I suggest you do some homework and learn how these modes work.
>> Like learning CW it takes time and dedication to understand the
>> technical and operating requirements for these modes.  Just because you
>> can pound a key doesn't mean you have the right stuff to make any form
>> of meaningful judgment about this topic.
>>
>> I suggest you stop wasting bandwidth here and do some learning.   And
>> then join the dialog with something meaningful.
>>
>> 73 Scott
>> VE7TIL
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> mal hamilton wrote:
>>>
>>> I did not ask a question about filtering !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> Oh but you did old man.
>>
>>> What I said was why use SSB mode which is 3 khz wide for a 6hz/200 hz
>>> wide signal when one could take advantage of the receiver narrow CW 
>>> filter
>> We do!  But it isn't necessary most of the time!!!!  I told you why
>> earlier...  I use my 300Hz filter most of the time with WSPR to keep LID
>> CW ops out of the passband.
>>
>>> , and of course this is filtered further by manipulation of the
>>> soundcard by software. This is old hat technology and not new.
>>> WSPR was engineered for VHF/UHF with plenty of frequency spectrum
>>> available and not MF/LF
>>
>> WRONG!
>>> squeezed into a 3 khz slot along with other more robust modes
>>> I am not opposed to any particular transmisson MODE but merely
>>> pointing out that the advantage claimed by some for WSPR is not
>>> justified in some cases and my recent observations indicate that I
>>> could have read the transmitted signal had it been ON/OFF CW, instead
>>> I had to wait ages for the signal to improve before text printed. This
>>> was the case last night with WE2XGR where the 2 minute interval trace
>>> was good enough to be read in on/off mode CW but not strong enough to
>>> print most of the time due to slow fade(QSB)
>>
>> You don't have enough experience or knowledge based on you comments to
>> intelligently comment on this in my opinion.
>>> I might even research WSPR further for comparison purposes but I
>>> cannot imagine that I will get a print out first before I see a trace.
>> You have pretty high expectations for the mode!  I have never heard of
>> any mode that you could decode without being able to see some form of
>> trace.  Perhaps you're one of these CW op types that has ESP and has
>> QSOs with the little DX stations in your head?  What don't like the fact
>> there is something in the world that can quantify reality?
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> G3KEV
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Tilley" <sthed475@telus.net>
>>> To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 5:00 AM
>>> Subject: Re: LF: wspr
>>>
>>>
>>>> If you could read you would do some research at K1JT's wonderful
>>>> website:
>>>> http://www.physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/
>>>>
>>>> Joe has laboured for many a year on similar projects and has written
>>>> much about his application of the art.  What you will find is that
>>>> research into communication theory that started with CW has taken us
>>>> here...
>>>>
>>>> To answer your specific question the filtering is done in software. 
>>>> The
>>>> DSP is done in your PC, thereby making filtering in the radio somewhat
>>>> redundant unless you have strong neighbours in the passband.  So 
>>>> using a
>>>> wide SSB filter and the radio in USB makes for easy math in ones head.
>>>> Yes, we digital types use our heads from time to time.
>>>>
>>>> Often with modes like JT65 used on EME and now quite popular on HF one
>>>> wants as much bandwidth as possible in the receiver so you can monitor
>>>> up to the entire band in real time.  So lots of raw bandwidth into the
>>>> computer is a good thing...
>>>>
>>>> All BS aside, you may find the technology very interesting to study 
>>>> and
>>>> you may find that what you discover is that the spirit of the CW
>>>> operator of old is alive and well just evolving with the times.
>>>>
>>>> CW will never die as it has a rich history but it shouldn't be allowed
>>>> to impede the growth of new modes and technology.
>>>>
>>>> You should build yourself a Softrock SDR receiver or even a small
>>>> transceiver kit and witness a true revolution in radio technology.  My
>>>> little 40/30m rig allows me to watch the entire band of either in real
>>>> time.  With some new software you can monitor all of the CW QSOs at
>>>> once...  Pretty cool.
>>>>
>>>> Not to mention you can plug a key into the little box and do what you
>>>> love most and work'm.
>>>>
>>>> 73 Scott
>>>> VE7TIL
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> mal hamilton wrote:
>>>>> If recent published info is correct, this specifies a bandwidth of 
>>>>> 6hz
>>>>> why is USB with a bandwidth of 3 khz necessary to receive this
>>>>> transmission.
>>>>> Surely it would be obvious that CW mode was more appropriate where
>>>>> one could use a narrow filter and dsp processor of a few hertz.
>>>>> I have asked this question before but never got an answer.
>>>>> g3kev
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>>> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.0/1862 - Release Date:
>>> 12/23/2008 12:08 PM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.0/1862 - Release Date: 
> 12/23/2008 12:08 PM
>
>
>