Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-df03.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id CF056380000D6; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:16:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1QwLj5-0000ri-Vl for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 23:15:11 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1QwLj5-0000rZ-Hv for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 23:15:11 +0100 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de ([129.206.100.212]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1QwLj4-0001a6-3b for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 23:15:11 +0100 Received: from freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.29.204]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p7OMF9su013460 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 00:15:09 +0200 Received: from [129.206.22.206] (pc206.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.22.206]) by freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.11.20060308/8.11.2) with ESMTP id p7OMF9Om010151 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 00:15:09 +0200 Message-ID: <4E557721.8060003@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 00:11:45 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Stefan_Sch=E4fer?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <790E5582101F4A069156B4677843CD78@AGB> In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: 1.4 (+) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,RATWARE_GECKO_BUILD=1.426 Subject: Re: LF: WSPR or QRSS: which is better? Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040008080009040304060905" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE 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: 0:2:431136416:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d40d74e55782e2e91 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040008080009040304060905 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Graham, Am 24.08.2011 23:49, schrieb Graham: > It would be nice to start , with the opening statement 'all > things being equal' but as 'we' all know that not quite the > case , one of the problems being , not all stations can send all > the modes and then not all can translate from audio .. so even > if say WSPR or Ros MF or EME where to be more efficient , > not all can join in . Yes, but what would you guess is the mode where most LF OPs can join in? CW or QRSS/DFCW/HELL, i.e. a scrolling spectrogram running in ARGO, SpecLab, Spectran... or WSPR? I would guess it's the spectrogram! :-) > From a communicating efficiency point of view, MFSK will > offer a higher efficiency compared to single tone, but , as can > be observed , LF operations tend to take place in extended time > scale so gain from time integration has tended to be the path > taken .. Yes, that's it. A simple eample: If WSPR "is 2 dB better than" QRSS-3 there would have been NOTHING AT ALL visible of my beacon signal during the last night on the grabbers of RN3AUS and 4X1RF and YO/4X1RF. But in QRSS-60 there was a clear trace, detectable without any doubts. That's the simple reason why this path has been taken. 73, Stefan/DK7FC --------------040008080009040304060905 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Graham,

Am 24.08.2011 23:49, schrieb Graham:
It  would be nice to  start , with the  opening  statement  'all  things being  equal'  but  as 'we' all  know   that  not  quite the  case , one of the  problems being ,  not  all  stations  can send all  the  modes and then not  all  can  translate  from  audio .. so  even if  say WSPR  or Ros  MF or  EME  where  to  be  more  efficient , not  all can join in .
Yes, but what would you guess is the mode where most LF OPs can join in? CW or QRSS/DFCW/HELL, i.e. a scrolling spectrogram running in ARGO, SpecLab, Spectran... or WSPR? I would guess it's the spectrogram! :-)

 
From a  communicating efficiency  point  of  view,   MFSK  will  offer  a  higher  efficiency  compared to   single  tone, but , as can be  observed  , LF operations tend  to  take  place in extended  time scale  so  gain from time integration   has tended  to  be the path  taken  ..  

Yes, that's it.
A simple eample: If WSPR "is 2 dB better than" QRSS-3 there would have been NOTHING AT ALL visible of my beacon signal during the last night on the grabbers of RN3AUS and 4X1RF and YO/4X1RF. But in QRSS-60 there was a clear trace, detectable without any doubts. That's the simple reason why this path has been taken.

73, Stefan/DK7FC
--------------040008080009040304060905--