Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dg01.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 877E1380000C8; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:40:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1QwJHu-0000A1-2l for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 20:38:58 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1QwJHp-00009s-4G for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 20:38:53 +0100 Received: from nm5.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com ([98.138.90.68]) by relay1.thorcom.net with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1QwJHm-0007RV-Tp for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 20:38:53 +0100 Received: from [98.138.90.57] by nm5.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Aug 2011 19:38:43 -0000 Received: from [98.138.87.3] by tm10.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Aug 2011 19:38:43 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1003.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Aug 2011 19:38:43 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 818171.22811.bm@omp1003.mail.ne1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 53699 invoked by uid 60001); 24 Aug 2011 19:38:43 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com.ar; s=s1024; t=1314214723; bh=5BLk3AznlhNOeGRp53aGNgwn4Gqw98lmZFI0dsciG6s=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=kupdFEfjAZErOohYlNR2hs9HYFSXQmFQ6LqLGOeldqNU4FqyMu6fdiNirZz0objBFy5ynNAz8s4hNks9b04Hstvv4WNzIt79+vjN+3W2IcK6qizV7B8pshkOKOzL0WM1wghNv8lbeLEaXBUVF6/ZWD5i6JFEsqtR0vAO/Rom3YI= DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.ar; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Sx98k4N6u/L7PUh+r5U98Dj/mw4hwwyD7lsRC/lqqGRCvTD1iB3Y3gBBSDCGE8Fr1qPEMez0rDMck+uKRqfBB9j2+/HBKQVKNo1fPu2UeQyzzgmEBs0x5O3EmyzjLIRnjI/04flPxNlaLeB9IomBFbEOHqprm8EuWTVHDnolvNg=; X-YMail-OSG: otrXExcVM1nb9v3FdzhhrgmXRBgVMfNPu01Zhm6GM2j73Eq 97pnytPUqBxdJZwEFSfeKeBnXSRoyQxMkgpBN_XGfF75JLwpoMHzC3vSmcta wT6xYWuzCtFmY.jRdy5ht2RKRp1XzMBGNGTYy_Mhzpu9Ln3WDy21Bb6mSol5 vDFh8_n7Tlhz8AemjXR5V.yrjlf8DsvtvEWK8qUXyYeNFT8dlJTRwJfRIZf7 _oeK6sixEh3VbFQGLH0NwUsf9D1.dYD4O1wid1rA2.3edtRLF2ntdPXvsA8. C_9dXxrVVpMMUH0370haOqjjM1Km.U4l78LGljge21Y.2HwXuieqqchN70_O j6tO4un9nEtggC5nJXT.tnLR9_h2K6xS9d.82c4lOFyOYncWMF1KXTi1zObN rpyYWaqhnBAFY.5teg49rMKCIXY1gh0SVYU5cORoiYS_neLVVgEAFXuhN5L. s0YPchPNNhAI4uY4V29hgdTr9jk3r8vWjPZizvk5o.k2H7mRIYaoH0Fv2k1Q a9_iPiDbBbFfjAENmmFLm_uqaJosSUBsOh389mmUEbv_a0lrkrBj7_qtBTLn GK54QjtjYAVJXeoGVXxHutXrYYpQNI_dFmpM6O.EBr07JaEGUA4bDBD0cAd7 FfUUPOUCh8YmvU3HY_ZQQ0uuyYPker3toNjzivw6aeOhwve4hSq9ji6kyjeM .DBtDQnaeNw0JfV69ebsyh_NvRPerZLMv3yXXMQ-- Received: from [186.38.16.70] by web125711.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:38:43 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.113.313619 References: <790E5582101F4A069156B4677843CD78@AGB> <007f01cc6286$0f541490$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <1314211001.22166.YahooMailNeo@web125716.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1314214723.53613.YahooMailNeo@web125711.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:38:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Marcelino Garcia To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 DomainKey-Status: good (testing) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 Subject: Re: LF: WSPR or QRSS: which is better? Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1196479703-1314214723=:53613" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30, HTML_FONTCOLOR_UNSAFE,HTML_MESSAGE,TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL 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-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:484658592:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: mail_rly_antispam_dkim-m008.1 ; domain : yahoo.com.ar DKIM : fail x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d41094e5553a60e1e X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none --0-1196479703-1314214723=:53613 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ok Roger,=0A=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Thank you! I w= ill take a deep look into your website, I just read about your 137 khz tran= sverter and found it a very interesting project.=0AI would like to have eno= ugh time to start building some equipment for LF, I'm just starting with re= ception on 137 khz band, we don't have yet the 500 khz band here in Argenti= na, hope we could get it soon.=0A73,=0AMarcelino - LU7DSU=0A=0A=0A=0A______= __________________________=0ADe: Roger Lapthorn = =0APara: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=0AEnviado: mi=E9rcoles, 24 de agosto = de 2011 15:56=0AAsunto: Re: LF: WSPR or QRSS: which is better?=0A=0A=0AHi M= arcelino=0A=0AThanks for this. =0A=0AYes I understand fully what is needed = for LF/MF WSPR and have implemented simple and low cost WSPR solutions usin= g transverters for both 136 and 500kHz with some excellent results on the l= atter band - see my website for details. On 136kHz WSPR my best DX is 148km= with a VERY low ERP and simple antenna. =0A=0AThis autumn I am improving t= he ERP on both bands and hope to better my DX on WSPR considerably. I also = confidently predict that the system improvements will allow me to have my f= irst CW QSO with G3KEV and others on 136kHz. I have already worked him on 5= 00kHz CW with 1mW ERP thanks to his good ears and good system and antennas.= =0A=0A73s=0ARoger G3XBM=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AOn 24 August 2011 19:36, Marcelino Ga= rcia wrote:=0A=0ARoger,=0A>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0 I fully agree with your statements, but I'm afraid that with a mi= nimalist home made CW transmitter, let's say just a one transistor xtal osc= illator, it's not=A0 possible to use WSPR, for this mode a little more comp= lex transmitter, may be SDR based, should be used.=0A>73,=0A>Marcelino - LU= 7DSU=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>________________________________=0A>De: Roger Lapth= orn =0A>Para: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=0A>Envi= ado: mi=E9rcoles, 24 de agosto de 2011 15:18=0A>Asunto: Re: LF: WSPR or QRS= S: which is better?=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>Mal=0A>=0A>Thanks again for your comment= s, some of which are valid.=A0 =0A>=0A>There are times when CW is useful an= d times when more efficient modes like WSPR really win out. =0A>=0A>As I ha= ve said countless times now, no other mode apart from WSPR that I know of i= s able to give me almost instant feedback (via the internet database) at a = distance that (a) my signal is being received at all, (b) how far it is get= ting, and (c) how strong it is. To be able to get this information when usi= ng simple, low powered and home made equipment is extremely useful. A small= change in the PA output or antenna efficiency is measurable. =0A>=0A>It re= ally comes down to what is the purpose of our experiments: being able to ma= ke CW contacts is a perfectly reasonable aim - please carry on. In my case = it is to see just what is possible with minimalist (hardware) equipment on = the VLF, LF and MF bands. Yes, I am gaining valuable dBs by the use of effi= cient coding systems and clever PC software, but I see nothing wrong in tha= t.=0A>=0A>And finally, please do NOT call me an appliance operator: all my = VLF-MF equipment is home-made as is much of my HF and VHF gear. I am happy = to use modern technology to enhance my enjoyment of the hobby and to exploi= t weak signal modes but I am equally happy to have a CW QSO on any band whe= n the opportunity arises.=0A>=0A>73s=0A>Roger G3XBM=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>On 2= 4 August 2011 18:48, mal hamilton wrote:=0A>=0A> = =0A>>Jim take NOTE=0A>>Impulsive noise generates a random output that looks= like =0Aa valid callsign so this is also=A0inventing a signal that you ima= gine to =0Aexist.=0A>>An immediate positive ID, don't depend on it =0A!!=0A= >>An appliance communications operator is easily =0Ahoodwinked.=0A>>Bletchl= ey Park CW=A0=A0expert Radio Operators =0Amanaged to piece messages togethe= r and achieved the object., and no doubt used =0Aimagination. =0A>>No exper= tise is need to send/receive wspr and for that =0Amatter a lot of other app= liance operator modes, know in the services today as =0AIDIOT PROOF comms b= lack=A0boxes.=0A>>For a commercial operator that needs to shift thousands o= f =0Amessages worldwide then automated digital modes are necessary and usef= ul, but =0Afor a radio hobbyist its like using a sledge hammer to crack the= proverbial =0Anut=0A>>=A0=0A>>g3kev=0A>>=A0=0A>>=A0=0A>>=A0=0A>>=A0=0A>>= =A0Original Message ----- =0A>>From: Andy Talbot =0A>>>To: rsgb_lf_group@b= lacksheep.org =0A>>>Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 6:06 PM=0A>>>Subject:= Re: LF: WSPR or QRSS: which is better?=0A>>>=0A>>>=0A>>>I know what you'r= e referring to.=A0 In cases of impulsive noise, there is a finite=A0probab= ility of=A0something eventually =A0getting through the decoder and being f= lagged as valid.=A0 The very nature of heavy source coding, means that the= resulting random output will look like a valid callsign.=A0=A0 However, W= E then apply the next level of error detection, by knowing the combination= must be rubbish.=0A>>>=A0=0A>>>'jnt=A0=A0 [and there is another=A0example = of source coding]=0A>>>=0A>>>=0A>>>=A0=0A>>>On 24 August 2011 17:47, Graha= m wrote:=0A>>>=0A>>> =0A>>>>>>=A0 and gives absol= utely guaranteed error free decoding, or nothing at all.=A0 <<=0A>>>>=A0= =0A>>>>Are you sure ?=A0=0A>>>>=A0=0A>>>>G..=0A>>>>=0A>>>>=0A>>>>From: Andy= Talbot =0A>>>>Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 5:12 PM=0A>>>>To: rsgb_lf_g= roup@blacksheep.org =0A>>>>Subject: Re: LF: WSPR or QRSS: which is better?= =0A>>>>=0A>>>>=0A>>>>WSPR works=A0in a 1.46Hz signal bandwidth and because = of its very high level of error correction and soft-decision decoding, mea= ns that=A0it will work at a S/N of about 3dB in this bandwidth, and somet= imes a bit lower still=A0 (Normally, FSK with no correction at all=A0needs= about 10 - 12dB S/N for near error-free performance)=0A>>>>=A0=0A>>>>QRSS= =A0has to show about 6 - 10dB in its signal bandwidth to be able to discer= n fully what is sent, although a slightly lower S/N may be useable when yo= u 'know' what you should be receiving.=A0 (A form of forward error correct= ion is now in use here as well perhaps=A0:-)=A0 So lets say 5dB S/N is a w= orking value..=0A>>>>=A0=0A>>>>So take=A03dB in 1.46Hz=A0as a starting poin= t and derive the bandwidth for QRSS needed to get 5dB S/N with the same si= gnal.=A0 This will have to be narrower to get a 2dB higher S/N and works o= ut as 1.46=A0/ 10^(2/10) =3D 0.92Hz=0A>>>>=A0=0A>>>>So QRSS used with a 0.= 9Hz bandwidth - which I think means about a 2 - 3s dot period ought to be = decoded at the same S/N as a WSPR signal.=A0=A0 Which is probably the info= you wanted.=0A>>>>=A0=0A>>>>But now compare source coding efficiencies.=A0= =A0 WSPR fits a callsign, locator and power level into a 110 second transm= ission - and gives absolutely guaranteed error free decoding, or nothing a= t all.=A0=A0About 12 characters in actuality, but that is being a bit unf= air as the coding forces certain callsign and locator formatting.=A0=A0 So= in all probablility, more like 7 or 8 effective characters (I'm being a b= it empirical here)=0A>>>>=A0=0A>>>>Assuming standard QRSS - not DFCW - , wh= ich if like standard Morse, then 5 characters takes about 50 dot symbols t= o send (12WPM =3D 60 chars in 1 minute, =3D 1 char / second, or about 10 d= ot periods / second.=A0=A0=A0 Dot speed =3D WPM / 1.2) =A0 If we have 2s d= ots, that is 5 characters can be sent=A0in the time for a WSPR transmissi= on.=0A>>>>=A0=0A>>>>So as a quick estimate, WSPR wins by=A0roughly 2dB in S= /N terms for a given dot period / noise bandwidth.=A0 And at similar S/N v= alues, WSPR is about 1.5 times faster=0A>>>>Andy=0A>>>>www.g4jnt.com=0A>>>= >=A0=0A>>>>=A0=0A>>>>=A0=0A>>>>=A0=0A>>>>On 24 August 2011 16:42, Roger Lap= thorn wrote:=0A>>>>=0A>>>>A question for the cod= ing experts here: WSPR is an excellent weak signal beaconing mode, but at = what QRSS speed is QRSS "better" ?=0A>>>>>=0A>>>>>73s=0A>>>>>Roger G3XBM= =0A>>>>>=0A>>>>>-- =0A>>>>>http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/=0A>>>>>http://www= .g3xbm.co.uk=0A>>>>>http://www.youtube.com/user/g3xbm=0A>>>>>https://sites.= google.com/site/sub9khz/=0A>>>>>=0A>>>>>=0A>>>>=0A>>>>=0A>>>>=0A>>>=0A>=0A>= =0A>-- =0A>http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/=0A>http://www.g3xbm.co.uk=0A>http= ://www.youtube.com/user/g3xbm=0A>https://sites.google.com/site/sub9khz/=0A>= =0A>=0A>=0A>=0A=0A=0A-- =0Ahttp://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/=0Ahttp://www.g3xb= m.co.uk=0Ahttp://www.youtube.com/user/g3xbm=0Ahttps://sites.google.com/site= /sub9khz/ --0-1196479703-1314214723=:53613 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ok Roger,<= /span>
        &nbs= p;        Thank you! I will take a deep = look into your website, I just read about your 137 khz transverter and foun= d it a very interesting project.
I would like to hav= e enough time to start building some equipment for LF, I'm just starting wi= th reception on 137 khz band, we don't have yet the 500 khz band here in Ar= gentina, hope we could get it soon.
73,
=
Marcelino - LU7DSU

De: Roger Lapthorn <rogerlapthor= n@gmail.com>
Para: r= sgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Enviad= o: mi=E9rcoles, 24 de agosto de 2011 15:56
Asunto: Re: LF: WSPR or QRSS: which is bette= r?

Hi Marcelino

Thanks for t= his.

Yes I understand fully what is needed for LF/MF WSPR and have = implemented simple and low cost WSPR solutions using transverters for both = 136 and 500kHz with some excellent results on the latter band - see my website for details. On 136kHz WSPR my best DX is 148km with a VERY low ERP and = simple antenna.
=0A
This autumn I am improving the ERP on both bands= and hope to better my DX on WSPR considerably. I also confidently predict = that the system improvements will allow me to have my first CW QSO with G3K= EV and others on 136kHz. I have already worked him on 500kHz CW with 1mW ER= P thanks to his good ears and good system and antennas.
=0A
73s
Ro= ger G3XBM



On 24 Augu= st 2011 19:36, Marcelino Garcia <lu7dsu@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
=0A
Roger,
    &nbs= p;       I fully agree with your statements, = but I'm afraid that with a minimalist home made CW transmitter, let's say j= ust a one transistor xtal oscillator, it's not  possible to use WSPR, = for this mode a little more complex transmitter, may be SDR based, should b= e used.
=0A
73,
Marcelino - LU= 7DSU

=0A
De: Roger Lapthorn <rogerlapthorn@gmail.com>
Para: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
=0AEnviado: mi=E9rcoles, 24 de agosto de 2011 15:18
Asunto: Re: LF: WSPR or QRSS: which = is better?
=0A
=
Mal

Thanks again for your comments, some of which are valid.&nb= sp;

There are times when CW is useful and times when more efficient= modes like WSPR really win out.

As I have said countless times now= , no other mode apart from WSPR that I know of is able to give me almost in= stant feedback (via the internet database) at a distance that (a) my signal= is being received at all, (b) how far it is getting, and (c) how strong it= is. To be able to get this information when using simple, low powered and = home made equipment is extremely useful. A small change in the PA output or= antenna efficiency is measurable.
=0A=0A
It really comes down to wh= at is the purpose of our experiments: being able to make CW contacts is a p= erfectly reasonable aim - please carry on. In my case it is to see just wha= t is possible with minimalist (hardware) equipment on the VLF, LF and MF ba= nds. Yes, I am gaining valuable dBs by the use of efficient coding systems = and clever PC software, but I see nothing wrong in that.
=0A=0A
And f= inally, please do NOT call me an appliance operator: all my VLF-MF equipmen= t is home-made as is much of my HF and VHF gear. I am happy to use modern t= echnology to enhance my enjoyment of the hobby and to exploit weak signal m= odes but I am equally happy to have a CW QSO on any band when the opportuni= ty arises.
=0A=0A
73s
Roger G3XBM



On 24 August= 2011 18:48, mal hamilton <g3kevmal@talktalk.net> wrote:
=0A= =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A
=0A
Jim take NOTE=
=0A
Impulsive noise generates a rando= m output that looks like =0Aa valid callsign so this is also inventing= a signal that you imagine to =0Aexist.
=0A
An immediate positive ID, don't depend on it =0A!!
=0AAn appliance communications operator is easily =0Aho= odwinked.
=0A
Bletchley Park CW &= nbsp;expert Radio Operators =0Amanaged to piece messages together and achie= ved the object., and no doubt used =0Aimagination.
=0A
No expertise is need to send/receive wspr and for that = =0Amatter a lot of other appliance operator modes, know in the services tod= ay as =0AIDIOT PROOF comms black boxes.
=0A
For a commercial operator that needs to shift thousands of =0Ame= ssages worldwide then automated digital modes are necessary and useful, but= =0Afor a radio hobbyist its like using a sledge hammer to crack the prover= bial =0Anut
=0A
 
=0A
g3= kev
=0A
 
=0A
 
=0A
&n= bsp;
=0A
 
=0A
 Ori= ginal Message -----
=0A
= =0A
From: =0A <= a rel=3D"nofollow" title=3D"andy.g4jnt@gmail.com" ymailto=3D"mailto:andy.g4= jnt@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank" href=3D"mailto:andy.g4jnt@gmail.com">Andy = =0A Talbot
=0A =0A
=
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 6:0= 6 =0A PM
=0A
Subject: Re: LF: WSPR or QRSS: which is =0A better?
=0A
=0A
I know what you're referring to.  In cases of impuls= ive noise, there =0A is a finite probability of something eventu= ally  getting =0A through the decoder and being flagged as valid.&nbs= p; The very nature of heavy =0A source coding, means that the resulting ra= ndom output will look like a valid =0A callsign.   However, WE t= hen apply the next level of error =0A detection, by knowing the combinatio= n must be rubbish.
=0A
 
=0A
'jnt   [a= nd there is another example of source =0A coding]
=0A

=
 
=0A
On 24 August 2011 17:47, Graham <g8fzk@g8fzk.fsnet.co.uk= > =0A wrote:
=0A
=0A
=0A
= =0A
>>  and gives absolutely guaranteed error free decod= ing, or =0A nothing at all.  <<
=0A
 
=
=0A
Are you sure ? 
=0A
 
=0A =
G..
=0A
=0A

= =0A
=0A =0A
=0A
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011= 5:12 PM
=0A =0A
Subject: Re: LF: WSPR or QRSS: whic= h is =0A better?
=0A

=0A =0A
=0A
=0A
WSPR works in a 1.46Hz sig= nal bandwidth and because of its very =0A high level of error correction= and soft-decision decoding, means =0A that it will work at a S/N o= f about 3dB in this bandwidth, and =0A sometimes a bit lower still = (Normally, FSK with no correction at =0A all needs about 10 - 12dB= S/N for near error-free performance)
=0A
 
=0A <= div>QRSS has to show about 6 - 10dB in its signal bandwidth to be able= =0A to discern fully what is sent, although a slightly lower S/N may be= useable =0A when you 'know' what you should be receiving.  (A form= of forward error =0A correction is now in use here as well perhaps = ;:-)  So lets say 5dB =0A S/N is a working value..
=0A  
=0A
So take 3dB in 1.46Hz as a starting poin= t and derive the =0A bandwidth for QRSS needed to get 5dB S/N with the s= ame signal.  This =0A will have to be narrower to get a 2dB higher = S/N and works out as =0A 1.46 / 10^(2/10) =3D 0.92Hz
=0A  
=0A
So QRSS used with a 0.9Hz bandwidth - which I th= ink means about a 2 - =0A 3s dot period ought to be decoded at the same = S/N as a WSPR =0A signal.   Which is probably the info you wan= ted.
=0A
 
=0A
But now compare source coding= efficiencies.   WSPR fits a =0A callsign, locator and power l= evel into a 110 second transmission - and gives =0A absolutely guarantee= d error free decoding, or nothing at =0A all.  About 12 charac= ters in actuality, but that is being a bit =0A unfair as the coding forc= es certain callsign and locator =0A formatting.   So in all pr= obablility, more like 7 or 8 effective =0A characters (I'm being a bit e= mpirical here)
=0A
 
=0A
Assuming standard Q= RSS - not DFCW - , which if like standard Morse, =0A then 5 characters t= akes about 50 dot symbols to send (12WPM =3D 60 chars in 1 =0A minute, = =3D 1 char / second, or about 10 dot periods / =0A second.  &n= bsp; Dot speed =3D WPM / 1.2)   If we have 2s dots, =0A that is 5 c= haracters can be sent in the time for a WSPR =0A transmission.=0A
 
=0A
So as a quick estimate, WSPR wins by&n= bsp;roughly 2dB in S/N terms for =0A a given dot period / noise bandwidt= h.  And at similar S/N values, WSPR =0A is about 1.5 times faster=0A
Andy
=0A =0A
 =0A
 
=0A
 
=0A
 =0A
On 24 August 2011 16:42, Roger Lapthorn <= rogerlapthorn@gmail.com&g= t; wrote:
=0A
A =0A question for the cod= ing experts here: WSPR is an excellent weak signal =0A beaconing mode,= but at what QRSS speed is QRSS "better" =0A ?

73s
Roger G3X= BM

--
http://g3xbm-qrp.= blogspot.com/
http://www.g3xbm.co.uk
=0A=0Ahttp://www.youtu= be.com/user/g3xbm
https://sites.google.com/site/sub9khz/<= /a>
=0A
=0A




=0A
<= br>

--
http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/
<= a rel=3D"nofollow" target=3D"_blank" href=3D"http://www.g3xbm.co.uk">http:/= /www.g3xbm.co.uk
=0A=0Ahttp://www.youtube.com/user/g3xbmhttps://sites.google.com/site/sub9khz/
=0A
=0A
=




--
http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/
http://www.g3xbm.c= o.uk
=0Ahttp://www.youtube.com/user/g3xbm
ht= tps://sites.google.com/site/sub9khz/

=0A

--0-1196479703-1314214723=:53613--