Message-ID: <497F3902.1070604@sighthound.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:40:34 +0000
From: John P-G <gm4slv@sighthound.demon.co.uk>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <004f01c9809a$708b5c30$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920>
In-Reply-To: <004f01c9809a$708b5c30$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920>
Subject: Re: LF: PROPAGATION WSPR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


mal hamilton wrote:
> On LF  I do not think wspr is the correct mode to study propagation 

Good points Mal. However CW for manual reception and QRSS, to be viewed
on a waterfall display, are fine for all manner of uses and in extremis
QRSS is probably more sensitive than WSPR. However QRSS requires the
receiving station to be actively watching the screen all the time, or to
save traces automatically and then manually review them, by eye, later.

This is rather time consuming and laborious.

WSPR may have it's downsides, and the problems last night with G0NBD
aside, I've never had any problems decoding anything I can visually see,
and also much that I could not hear and would be at the threshold of
QRSS useabilty.

I have confidence that what I see reported by the software is a
reasonable representation of what was transmitted, and it's much easier
to quantify changes in signal strength vs time with the WSPR data than
estimating by eye the quality of a QRSS transmission.

It may not be accurate in terms of actual reported S/N ratio, but it's
consistent from session to session, and gives numbers to work with, if
that's your interest.

Not everyone can sit waiting for the brief propagation opening, so
automating the process at least adds another facet this interesting hobby.

If it hurts no-one then what's the harm?

Regards,

John
GM4SLV