Message-ID: <4F291406.5020005@talktalk.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 10:29:26 +0000
From: qrss <qrss@talktalk.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <006201cce044$06c16f80$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <3A9A60CAE4EB4355A5B0A30CDA0F450A@JimPC> <AE79F5BD0B964D4CBF8E04AD01E73808@JimPC> <4F287B3F.1040109@talktalk.net> <001b01cce0c1$49ec88d0$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <4F290605.80706@talktalk.net> <004301cce0c8$ef41a700$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf>
In-Reply-To: <004301cce0c8$ef41a700$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf>
Subject: Re: LF: Re: Opera v qrs evaluation
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
X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0  
x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d604e4f29143b598c
X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25
X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none


But but but but, how do you know some QRS is a Beacon until you notice 
it and decode it. You Mal then normally post a comment about the 'time 
an band width waster'. I am pretty sure that until yesterday you had 
never seen my signal on 500kHz.
Remember you did order me off 500kHz with my 'band width wasting WSPR' 
when I first got my NOV without even seeing my signal.:-)

Eddie

On 01/02/2012 10:04, mal hamilton wrote:
> I would say your qrs on 500 was heard/seen but no one could be bothered to
> report it.
> I personally do not report QRS beacon acty on any band.
> The majority of 500 Beacons are normal CW and I can hear the USA and Canada
> frequently and strong enough for a QSO
> I thought a PIC was an implement to dig a hole with !!
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "qrss"<qrss@talktalk.net>
> To:<rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 9:29 AM
> Subject: Re: LF: Re: Opera v qrs evaluation
>
>
>> Mal
>>
>> Fact. Everyone including G3KEV has missed my QRS3 and QRS10 on 500kHz
>> every time I have had it on, using this same TX, in fact I removed the
>> PIC which sends the QRS and inserted OPERA, viola PA0's at 493km decode
> me.
>> Please be technical not emotional about the subject it doesn't help.
>>
>> 73 Eddie
>>
>>
>> On 01/02/2012 09:10, mal hamilton wrote:
>>> QRSS does NOT get lost or missed  in the noise as you suggest and one
> can
>>> always see at least part of the information trace, whereas Opera is all
> or
>>> nothing and I have noticed at times a TRACE but NO DECODE.
>>> I wonder what your next distortion of the facts will be
>>> g3kev
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "qrss"<qrss@talktalk.net>
>>> To:<rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 11:37 PM
>>> Subject: Re: LF: Re: Opera v qrs evaluation
>>>
>>>
>>>> Dear Jim, Rik, Laurence
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the information, it does seem from all tests that QRS3 and
>>>> OP4 are about equivalent.
>>>> QRS as we know takes a human to notice its there among noise and can
> get
>>>> missed. With OPERA (and WSPR) if there is an RX on in range it's
> de-coded.
>>>> 73 Eddie G3ZJO
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 31/01/2012 22:51, James Moritz wrote:
>>>>> Dear Eddie, LF Group,
>>>>>
>>>>> I did a rough and ready comparative test on the "sensitivity" of QRSS3
>>>>> and Op4 using your back-to-back transmissions. For 500kHz reception,
>>>>> broadband noise from the broadcast stations just east of here is being
>>>>> nulled out using a loop oriented N-S. Rotating the loop out of the
>>>>> null position gives a convenient way of adjusting the SNR on Eddie's
>>>>> signal. So I increased the noise level until I judged Eddie's QRSS was
>>>>> just fully readable (using 0.3Hz FFT resolution), then left everything
>>>>> in the same position for 4 transmissions, during which signal and
>>>>> noise levels stayed nearly constant (see the attachment). Opera
>>>>> reported an SNR of -31dB on Eddie's Op4 signal for all the
>>> transmissions.
>>>>> So, from what Graham said, Op4 may have a small margin in SNR with
>>>>> these conditions. You could argue about what constitutes "readable"
>>>>> QRSS, but there can't be more than a few dB difference between this
>>>>> signal and something indecipherable without prior knowledge. It takes
>>>>> 4 minutes to send a callsign using Op4; you could increase the dot
>>>>> length perhaps to 4s  and transmit most callsigns in 4 minutes, which
>>>>> would gain you about 1.2dB. But for practical purposes I think, in
>>>>> this test anyway, the two modes are approximately equivalent in their
>>>>> efficiency in sending callsigns.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers, Jim Moritz
>>>>> 73 de M0BMU
>>>
>>
>
>