Message-ID: <02b001ca60b1$28a154e0$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920>
From: "mal hamilton" <g3kevmal@talktalk.net>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <027601ca60a2$841cd150$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920> <D02A66602B1C4C0FB104CC081B9E0454@JimPC>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 20:22:13 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: LF: Re: Re: WSPR
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Moritz" <james.moritz@btopenworld.com>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 7:26 PM
Subject: LF: Re: WSPR


> Dear Mal, LF Group,
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "mal hamilton" <g3kevmal@talktalk.net>
>
>
>>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.

I disagree with your observations above and are you saying there is no ID, 
LOCATION info when using CW or QRS
I agree you do not need an operator, no skills necessary, just leave it to 
unattended machines.
A good CW operator would have station ID, QTH and RST exchanged while others 
are waiting for WSPR to decode.
G3KEV

>
>
> Cheers, Jim Moritz
> 73 de M0BMU
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.55/2489 - Release Date: 11/08/09 
07:37:00