Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-db02.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id CF1D738000085; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 15:47:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1RvE8h-0004Rq-0R for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:29:15 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1RvE8g-0004Rh-9f for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:29:14 +0000 Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com ([209.85.212.171]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1RvE8e-00016v-Ix for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:29:14 +0000 Received: by wibhm2 with SMTP id hm2so1131327wib.16 for ; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:29:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=n74iPA4vtjpVZOKgpf9SEOvITMdf4Ivy/3Iu0dYcU2o=; b=IRWzUHgQ8FkHQt+LydUpcJL94ylmSh+YTc5gmAPT2eYrWOELxcIElMJ3ubRUBmMBSg IFwuqurh/sO+Fu7WH8ZWO9LFot3Iq0wzIOwBB3ZbNmMzRl2CF7ZdzzVXDy+JMbz+joFX a+7CE9GHi1QgCvZOUC77OJq2mCwv1EXD9GCnE= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.93.194 with SMTP id cw2mr42817969wib.0.1328732946397; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:29:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.180.77.107 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 12:29:06 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:29:06 +0000 Message-ID: From: Roger Lapthorn To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 Subject: Re: LF: QRSS3 "challenge" results Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043be1644578b204b879bfda 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 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: 0:2:479260288:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: mail_rly_antispam_dkim-d017.1 ; domain : gmail.com DKIM : pass x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d40564f32df4a0d3b X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none --f46d043be1644578b204b879bfda Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Thanks Andy. Yes, that is what I meant! 73s Roger On 8 February 2012 20:24, Andy Talbot wrote: > You don't need a linear PA for WSPR. It is constant amplitude MFSK. > Timing only has to be within a few seconds, and an internet time > server can do that > > You will need an upconverter though - which I assume is what you meant - > > Of course, there always direct generation available... > > Andy G4JNT > > On 8 February 2012 20:17, Roger Lapthorn wrote: > > Rik's comment that WSPR is roughly equivalent to QRSS10 is interesting > and > > ties up well with my own experience: with QRPp and a small antenna QRSS3 > was > > a struggle (100km) , QRSS30 got me a decent distance (300km +) and WSPR > got > > me somewhere in the middle (250km) . > > > > It still surprises me that more people don't use WSPR on 136kHz for > > beaconing when it is stable, reliable, very well documented and has all > the > > advantages of an internet database to almost instantly check how well > your > > signal is being propagated. I guess the disadvantages are the need for a > > linear PA and the timing accuracy. I've still not re-installed OPERA as I > > know it would be a CPU struggle with my PC. > > > > 73s > > Roger G3XBM > > > > > > > > On 8 February 2012 18:32, James Moritz > wrote: > >> > >> Dear Andy, Rik, LF Group, > >> > >> > >> G4JNT wrote: > >> ...>When you generasted the Opera and WSPR audio files, did you take > into > >> account that Opera should be compared using the mean power? With its > >> 50% duty cycle, this means an Opera Tx has to have twice the power > >> rating of one running WSPR for equal S/N ratios...> > >> > >> ... But on the other hand, you could argue that since the TX power is in > >> practice normally limited by the PEP available from the PA. So by having > >> 100% duty cycle, WSPR effectively doubles the available average output > power > >> from a given transmitter, compared to Opera. I suppose it depends > whether > >> you are more worried about corona on the antenna, or your electricity > bill > >> ;-) > >> > >> I think it is interesting that there is only a small difference between > >> "average" and "top 10" operators - down to about 70% correct copy, there > >> appears be less than 1dB between "good" and "average". Surely any lower > >> levels of accuracy would be pretty useless for communicating > information, > >> even in an amateur context. This suggests the "human factor" in QRSS > >> reception is perhaps quite a small factor. > >> > >> Cheers, Jim Moritz > >> 73 de M0BMU > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> If you used peak power (ie. the same transmitter amplitude), the curve > >> plotted for Opera will have to move 3dB to the right, making it more > >> comparable with WSPR - and then more as one would expect. > >> > >> Given the similarity of the error correction overhead for Opera and > >> WSPR, and nearly matching symbol rate for OP2 ,and that OOK and FSK > >> have comparable error rates for the same mean power, suggests the two > >> modes should give roughly similar performance. > >> > >> Only 27 responses, that doesn't seem very many compared with the > >> numbers that monitor this reflector. > >> > >> Andy G4JNT > >> > >> > >> On 8 February 2012 16:00, Rik Strobbe > wrote: > >>> > >>> Dear all, > >>> > >>> the results of the "QRSS3 challenge" can be found at > >>> http://on7yd.strobbe.eu/QRSS/ > >>> Hit refresh if you still see the old challenge. > >>> > >>> Thanks to all who participated ! > >>> > >>> 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T > >>> > >>> ________________________________ > >>> Van: Rik Strobbe > >>> Verzonden: donderdag 2 februari 2012 18:17 > >>> Aan: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > >>> Onderwerp: QRSS3 "challenge" > >>> > >>> Dear all, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> as mentioned some days ago I generated a whole series of Opera, WSPR > >>> and QRSS3 audio with a known SNR. > >>> > >>> For Opera and WSPR it was easy to determine the lowest SNR for a proper > >>> decode. But for QRSS3 it is much more difficult as it depends on the > >>> operators "sharp eye". It must be somewhere in the range of -24 to > -28dB > >>> SNR > >>> (@ 2.5kHz BW). > >>> > >>> Today I did put all the QRSS3 screenshots in this range in a > >>> website, where you can fill in what you see (decode) for each > screenshot. > >>> > >>> I would like to invite all of you to give it a try and send me the > >>> results > >>> (the more entries the better the statistics). > >>> > >>> After some time (Feb 10th) will put all results into some nice tables > >>> and graphs and make them available. > >>> > >>> Of course no personal (individual) results will be published. But based > >>> on > >>> the results every participant (who keeps his results) can see where he > >>> ends. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The "QRSS3 Challenge" can be found at http://on7yd.strobbe.eu/QRSS/ > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ----- > >> No virus found in this message. > >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > >> Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4795 - Release Date: > 02/07/12 > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > http://qss2.blogspot.com/ > > http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/ > > http://www.g3xbm.co.uk > > https://sites.google.com/site/sub9khz/ > > > > > > -- http://qss2.blogspot.com/ http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/ http://www.g3xbm.co.uk https://sites.google.com/site/sub9khz/ --f46d043be1644578b204b879bfda Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks Andy. Yes, that is what I meant!

73s Roger

On 8 February 2012 20:24, Andy Talbot &l= t;andy.g4jnt@gmail.com> wrote:
You don't need a linear PA for WSPR. It = is constant amplitude MFSK.
Timing only has to be within a few seconds, and an internet time
server can do that

You will need an upconverter though - which I assume is what you meant -
Of course, there always direct generation available...

Andy =A0G4JNT

On 8 February 2012 20:17, Roger Lapthorn <rogerlapthorn@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rik's comment that WSPR is roughly equivalent to QRSS10 is interes= ting and
> ties up well with my own experience: with QRPp and a small antenna QRS= S3 was
> a struggle (100km) , QRSS30 got me a decent distance (300km +) and WSP= R got
> me somewhere in the middle (250km) .
>
> It still surprises me that more people don't use WSPR on 136kHz fo= r
> beaconing when it is stable, reliable, very well documented and has al= l the
> advantages of an internet database to almost instantly check how well = your
> signal is being propagated. I guess the disadvantages are the need for= a
> linear PA and the timing accuracy. I've still not re-installed OPE= RA as I
> know it would be a CPU struggle with my PC.
>
> 73s
> Roger G3XBM
>
>
>
> On 8 February 2012 18:32, James Moritz <james.moritz@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Andy, Rik, LF Group,
>>
>>
>> G4JNT wrote:
>> ...>When you generasted the Opera and WSPR audio files, did you= take into
>> account that Opera should be compared using the mean power? =A0Wit= h its
>> 50% duty cycle, this means an Opera Tx has to have twice the power=
>> rating of one running WSPR for equal S/N ratios...>
>>
>> ... But on the other hand, you could argue that since the TX power= is in
>> practice normally limited by the PEP available from the PA. So by = having
>> 100% duty cycle, WSPR effectively doubles the available average ou= tput power
>> from a given transmitter, compared to Opera. I suppose it depends = whether
>> you are more worried about corona on the antenna, or your electric= ity bill
>> ;-)
>>
>> I think it is interesting that there is only a small difference be= tween
>> "average" and "top 10" operators - down to abo= ut 70% correct copy, there
>> appears be less than 1dB =A0between "good" and "ave= rage". Surely any lower
>> levels of accuracy would be pretty useless for communicating infor= mation,
>> even in an amateur context. This suggests the "human factor&q= uot; in QRSS
>> reception is perhaps quite a small factor.
>>
>> Cheers, Jim Moritz
>> 73 de M0BMU
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> If you used peak power (ie. the same transmitter amplitude), the c= urve
>> plotted for Opera will have to move 3dB to the right, making it mo= re
>> comparable with WSPR - and then more as one would expect.
>>
>> Given the similarity of the error correction overhead for Opera an= d
>> WSPR, =A0and nearly matching symbol rate for OP2 ,and that OOK and= FSK
>> have comparable error rates for the same mean power, suggests the = two
>> modes should give roughly similar performance.
>>
>> Only 27 responses, that doesn't seem very many compared with t= he
>> numbers that monitor this reflector.
>>
>> Andy =A0G4JNT
>>
>>
>> On 8 February 2012 16:00, Rik Strobbe <Rik.Strobbe@fys.kuleuven.be> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> the results of the "QRSS3 challenge" can be found at=
>>> ht= tp://on7yd.strobbe.eu/QRSS/
>>> Hit refresh if you still see the old challenge.
>>>
>>> Thanks to all who participated !
>>>
>>> 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> Van: Rik Strobbe
>>> Verzonden: donderdag 2 februari 2012 18:17
>>> Aan: rsgb_lf_g= roup@blacksheep.org
>>> Onderwerp: QRSS3 "challenge"
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> as mentioned some days ago I generated a whole series of Opera= , WSPR
>>> and QRSS3 audio with a known SNR.
>>>
>>> For Opera and WSPR it was easy to determine the lowest SNR for= a proper
>>> decode. But for QRSS3 it is much more difficult as it depends = on the
>>> operators "sharp eye". It must be somewhere in the r= ange of -24 to -28dB
>>> SNR
>>> (@ 2.5kHz BW).
>>>
>>> Today I did put all the QRSS3 screenshots in this range in a >>> website, where you can fill in what you see (decode) for each = screenshot.
>>>
>>> I would like to invite all of you to give it a try and send me= the
>>> results
>>> (the more entries the better the statistics).
>>>
>>> After some time (Feb 10th) will put all results into some nice= tables
>>> and graphs and make them available.
>>>
>>> Of course no personal (individual) results will be published. = But based
>>> on
>>> the results every participant (who keeps his results) can see = where he
>>> ends.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The "QRSS3 Challenge" can be found at http://on7yd.strobbe.eu/QRSS/=
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - = www.avg.com
>> Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4795 - Release Date: 0= 2/07/12
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://qss2.bl= ogspot.com/
> http://g3= xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/
> http://www.g3xbm.= co.uk
> h= ttps://sites.google.com/site/sub9khz/
>
>




--
http://qss2.blogspot.com/
http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/
http://www.g3xbm.co.uk
https://sites.google.com/site/sub9khz/

--f46d043be1644578b204b879bfda--