Return-Path: Received: from mtain-dh12.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-dh12.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.65.32]) by air-da10.mail.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id MAILINDA103-86424cd5e73f335; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 19:39:43 -0400 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dh12.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 93E813800009B; Sat, 6 Nov 2010 19:39:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1PEsKP-0005a2-Q3 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 23:37:45 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1PEsKP-0005Zt-7M for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 23:37:45 +0000 Received: from lon1-post-2.mail.demon.net ([195.173.77.149]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1PEsKN-0003aK-Hr for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 23:37:45 +0000 Received: from sighthound.demon.co.uk ([80.177.174.126]) by lon1-post-2.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 4.69) id 1PEsKM-0000Bz-bK for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 23:37:42 +0000 Received: from opc1 (opc1.twatt.home [192.168.21.16]) by svr3.twatt.home (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6EB21BE7F for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2010 23:37:41 +0000 (GMT) Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 23:37:41 +0000 From: John GM4SLV To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Message-ID: <20101106233741.0895ce48@opc1> In-Reply-To: References: <20101101233708.02b5f67d@opc1> <007b01cb7a91$ceb8df60$4001a8c0@lark> <187038.8742.qm@web86705.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Organization: The Gammy Bird X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.6 (GTK+ 2.22.0; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,none Subject: Re: LF: WSPR T/A hole discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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=none 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-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d41204cd5e73d3fb5 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 22:25:33 +0100 "Roelof Bakker" wrote: > Looking forward to your comments, Roelof, LF, Erudite points well put, as ever. One point keeps nagging at me. If Jay is correct, and the number of strong (high power/efficient antenna/high ERP/groundwave path) W stations is large enough to prevent adequate reception of weak signals from Europe, then this also means there will be no possibility of weak signal reception from other WD/WE stations. Why are they using such high power on WSPR? What is the point of this if, as Jay says, everyone will continually be being overloaded by their strong groundwave neighbo(u)rs? Are the high power stations that Jay describes only interested in reception reports from Europe, rather than from other W stations? If they do want reports from W-land, then by Jay's argument, they will only get reports from their near-neighbo(u)rs, as the weaker long distance stuff will be blocked due to RX overload. This can't be right? I don't believe there is a problem of RX overload preventing reception of weak signals (from where-ever), and if there is a problem then the solution is to reduce TX power to the point that allows maximum transmission distance, and minimum RX overload, rather then segregating us into separate parts of the spectrum. I still don't understand. John GM4SLV