Message-ID: <003101ccd902$2d6111c0$8cd9160a@EFREMOV>
From: "rn3agc" <rn3agc@mail.ru>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <4F1BE531.7370.A577295@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 16:33:49 +0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: LF: Re: Opera - initial thoughts
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
X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0  
X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: mail_rly_antispam_dkim-m202.2 ; domain : mail.ru DKIM : pass  
x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d40da4f1c02c36901
X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25
X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none


Hi Mike,

>>No DX reports have been receved, although well-equipped stations in 
>>UA and W have been active.

Possibly, you mean also my station. I will clear a situation.
The grabber in KO86NP works with the downconverter.
An exit 30 khz. Therefore there is no possibility to use Opera.
In Moscow (KO85SV) strong QRM - 9+ on s-meter.
At night I have received signal UA4WPF only because this station is close.

73
Andrey




>I have been using Opera on 136kHz for about a week now. My initial 
> findings are as follows:
> 
> Around 12 stations have reported on my signals, in G, GW, F, DL, and 
> PA. 
> 
> No DX reports have been receved, although well-equipped stations in 
> UA and W have been active.
> 
> I have received Russian stations as far as 3500km away.
> 
> Several stations are active who are not visible on this group.
> 
> The main benefits of Opera require an Internet connection.
> 
> The slower Opera32 is more effective than Opera8, which is to be 
> expected.
> 
> It is much easier to run overnight tests than with QRSS, because 
> effectively every receiving station has a 'grabber'.
> 
> It is easy to run both transmit and receive tests over the same 
> night.
> 
> The software changes are now further apart (every few days, instead 
> of daily) and new versions are no longer incompatilble with the 
> previous ones.
> 
> Although two stations can independently report on each other's 
> signals, a QSO mode would be a really useful addition.
> 
> My conclusion is that Opera seems to be a very useful propagation 
> research tool, and could be a good communications mode.
> 
> Is it better than QRSS? Well, it is a useful way to make a two-way 
> QSO during periods of good conditions that are too short to support a 
> QRSS30-60 contact. G4WGT and VO1NA have already demonstrated this. 
> However, I have not yet seen any evidence that it can beat QRSS at 
> the most marginal level. It could easily replace most QRSS3 contacts 
> when signals are good. 
> 
> I can see my call on QRSS grabbers in TF, 4X, UA, VE and W quite 
> often and would have expected some Opera reports from these 
> distances. One issue might be that all stations are in the same 
> narrow sub-band, which works fine on HF with very short ground wave, 
> but may be inappropriate for LF where huge local signals compete with 
> marginal DX. This was a problem with QRSS DX, which is why we now 
> operate split frequency.
> 
> I shall continue using Opera, but willl also use QRSS for DX tests.
> 
> 73 de Mike, G3XDV
> ===============
> 
> 
> 
> 
>