Message-ID: <4AF73120.6070007@telus.net>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:59:12 -0800
From: Scott Tilley <sthed475@telus.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <027601ca60a2$841cd150$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920> <020b01ca60a9$4495adc0$0201a8c0@Clemens04> <029701ca60af$4f444d20$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920>
In-Reply-To: <029701ca60af$4f444d20$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920>
Subject: Re: LF: Re: Re: WSPR
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


Hey Mal

Would you consider firing up a QRSS beacon for a couple of hours before 
and during your sunrise in the NA waterhole  137778.0Hz +/- 3Hz?

DCF39 has been audible for the last couple of nights and it may be our 
time to get a signal from EU into the west coast of NA.  I'd like to see 
how the path works while open and see whether there is a possibility of 
QSO in the future.

Here's your chance at another first...

TU es 73
Scott


mal hamilton wrote:
> Two points
>
> Why waste 2.4 kHz when QRS only needs a few Hz with a better S/N ratio.
>
> You agree that a faint trace is visible. If this faint trace was QRS 
> mode only a few Hz bandwidth would be necessary to read the 
> intellegence and the signal/noise would be superior.
> G3KEV
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clemens Paul" <cpaul@gmx.net>
> To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 7:23 PM
> Subject: LF: Re: WSPR
>
>
>> Mal,
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> WSPR refers the indicated SNR to a BW of 2,4kHz.
>> So if your receiving BW is say 100Hz your actual SNR is better by 
>> ~14dB than WSPR
>> reports.
>>
>>> A trace of the signal is visible long before a decode takes place, 
>>> therefore why
>>> not use QRS in
>> >the first place.
>>
>> This may be an issue of your RX/soundcard setup.
>> I can assure you that with my Perseus SDR RX,set to a RBW of less 
>> than one Hertz
>> for the display,I can decode every WSPR signal which shows even only 
>> a faint trace on
>> the waterfall diagram.
>> At least this is my experience so far.
>>
>> 73
>> Clemens
>> DL4RAJ
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: mal hamilton
>> To: rsgb
>> Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 7:37 PM
>> Subject: LF: WSPR
>>
>>
>> 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. I would say it depends on the RX antenna and 
>> not necessarily
>> propagation. A large antenna yields better results than a small loop 
>> or active whip.
>> 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 ?
>> 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
>> A trace of the signal is visible long before a decode takes place, 
>> therefore why not use QRS
>> in the first place.
>>
>> G3KEV
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>