Message-ID: <50FDC17F.1000305@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 23:30:23 +0100
From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Stefan_Sch=E4fer?= <Stefan.Schaefer@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
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: <50FD8A44.5010705@gmx.de> <50FD8D96.80203@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <50FDA72B.2070808@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <50FDA72B.2070808@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: LF: WE2XEB WSPR15 decodes
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Hi Hartmut,

Yes, it is very difficult. But you can make a personal estimation.
For example, i got no decode at YV7MAE although he did receive my=20
complete callsign in DFCW-90. But W4DEX got decodes although i am not=20
strong enough to leave my call in DFCW-10, i think ;-)
Compared to DFCW-90, WSPR-15 only needs 1/3 of the time and sends more=20
information (DK7FC JN49 30dBm). Anyway, from my point of view, if there=20
is no decode in WSPR but some clear traces giving a clear ID, DFCW-90=20
would win, regardless how long it takes and how much information is sent.

73, Stefan


Am 21.01.2013 21:38, schrieb Hartmut Wolff:
> Am 2013-01-21 19:48, schrieb Stefan Sch=E4fer:
>> What do you think, which QRSS mode is about as sensitive as WSPR-15,
>> from your subjective impression?
>> I would think it must be something arround DFCW-30. But we have to go =
on
>> with further tests. At least it is very promising!
>
> Hi Stefan,
>
> it's difficult to compare QRSS or DFCW with a digital mode. Last night=20
> I only copied XGJ in QRSS60 mode. For a real comparison there is to=20
> little activity.
>