Message-ID: <51176F71.5050508@psk31.plus.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:59:13 +0000
From: g3zjo <g3zjo@psk31.plus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <5116977F.50108@npton.plus.com> <51169844.60906@psk31.plus.com> <511699B8.4000208@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <51169C65.2060800@psk31.plus.com> <5116A1E6.5040806@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <5116A6CF.3040609@psk31.plus.com> <17CDB7B27CCF4FFC8EBE21149BDE815D@PcMinto> <5116D582.9010004@psk31.plus.com> <D0D204B7880144B1BC4892133337ACB8@PcMinto> <5116E32F.7040505@psk31.plus.com> <7E4DF9667E4F42858785B7252AD1AD55@AGB>
In-Reply-To: <7E4DF9667E4F42858785B7252AD1AD55@AGB>
Subject: LF: Opera and WSPR Test
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Hi G

Yeh, ere, get off my thread.:-)

On 10/02/2013 00:59, Graham wrote:
> Ed..
>
> Longer TX periods gave more time for propagation or QRM to give zero
> results,
>
> We have  times  of  2,4,8,16 , dropped  16  as that  was  ott  , most  
> made TA  to  usa  with  2 , but 4  gave  another  -3 dB  ... 8 ? well  
> may  be  , dose seem  to  work  over distance
>
It's my personal findings only, but on MF using low power, I remember my 
tests with Albert and the step back in amazement, when OP4 was being 
lauded as equivalent to WSPR2 due to the duty cycle difference. WSPR2 
did and OP4 didn't and took twice the time to let you know, give that to 
an impatient git and which wins.?
> WSPR does it better quicker.
>
> Is that  wspr  15  ?
I haven't got round to coding WSPR 15 yet.

73 Eddie
> G..
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "g3zjo" <g3zjo@psk31.plus.com>
> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 12:00 AM
> To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> Subject: Re: LF: Re: WSPR Test
>
>> Hi Minto
>>
>> Transmit only, Opera is very simple, I think the PIC code of your 
>> message is still available from the software GUI menu, the timing is 
>> merely bits / message time. Yes I just sat and coded it without 
>> writng down any protocol, its easier than WSPR.
>> The main thing that annoys me with OPERA on MF is the long TX 
>> periods. Longer TX periods gave more time for propagation or QRM to 
>> give zero results, I feel WSPR does it better quicker.
>>
>> Same here on final builds but the present nest needs to be less quick 
>> flash, bang, vapour resistant.:-)
>>
>> Eddie
>>
>> On 09/02/2013 23:37, Minto Witteveen wrote:
>>> Hi Eddy,
>>>
>>> Where did you get the description of the OPERA protocol? And did you 
>>> write the encoding yourself?
>>>
>>> I found a protocol description of Opera on Andy’s (G4JNT) website, 
>>> but it is reverse-engineered, and I seem to remember him complaining 
>>> about undocumented (and unannounced) protocol changes.. So I am not 
>>> sure how up to date his description is.
>>>
>>> I understand that Opera is quite efficient, so I am still somewhat 
>>> interested… but not in just simply generating Opera timings with an 
>>> obfuscated and secret external program and then parsing this through 
>>> my PIC/AD9850 TX. Where is the fun in that?
>>>
>>> As for  a final build.. there is no such thing here @pa3bca… As soon 
>>> as it’s finished (i.e. I cannot think of additional things or 
>>> software to add) it will probably start gathering dust somewhere. Or 
>>> (more likely) I will attach a key(er) and use it for CW. Beaconing 
>>> for beaconing’s sake is not for me.
>>>
>>> 73’s and please keep us posted on results.
>>> Minto pa3bca
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>
>>>
>>> Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse
>>> -----Original Message----- From: g3zjo
>>> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 00:02
>>> To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
>>> Subject: Re: LF: Re: WSPR Test
>>>
>>> Hi Minto
>>>
>>> Nice one.
>>>
>>> There is a 4066 on my Modulator / Mixer board too,  unused here, I can
>>> reconfigure and plug in the Key. I am not sure of any ultimate
>>> configurations for a final build, it is still at the experimental 
>>> stage.
>>> I have a CW / OPERA QRSS Module too, I  have coded and tested OPERA it
>>> is OK but I can't get to love it.
>>>
>>> 73 Eddie G3ZJO
>>>
>>> On 09/02/2013 22:22, Minto Witteveen wrote:
>>>> I too have built a standalone 472 100 Watt TX with a PIC (and an 
>>>> AD9850). The software I have written so far now handles CW, QRSS, 
>>>> DFCW and WSPR-2 and WSPR-15  (thanks to Andy who wrote up a nice 
>>>> description of the WSPR protocol).
>>>> Even with a simple ‘air cooled’  10 MHz crystal  (40 MHz with 4x 
>>>> PLL) running the PIC timekeeping is quite good, and it seems good 
>>>> enough to have the PIC running for more than a day and still 
>>>> getting WSPR decodes. If I run it from a 12.8 TXCO it will be even 
>>>> better.
>>>> I now sync the TX (for WSPR) by getting the PIC out of reset 
>>>> exactly on an even minute….
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure if I am going to implement Opera. There is too much 
>>>> obscurity here for my liking. Apart from the difficulty of getting 
>>>> a good and complete description of the protocol it’s the secrecy 
>>>> itself that has no place in radio amateurism (at least that is how 
>>>> I think about the issue).
>>>>
>>>> As for being a despicable  appliance operator: notice the 4066? 
>>>> Here I can attach a key..
>>>>
>>>> The PIC board will disappear. Possibly I will add a PIC to the DDS 
>>>> board (will have to reposition the 7805 for it to fit). Either that 
>>>> or I will add a small board with the PIC and connectors for the LCD 
>>>> display, the RS232 for a terminal and possibly a rotary encoder.
>>>> Add a 24V 150 Watt Meanwell switching PSU and it’s a neat little 
>>>> self-contained package.
>>>>
>>>> See attachments for a photo of the current setup and a quicly drawn 
>>>> schematic
>>>>
>>>> 73's Minto pa3bca
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse
>>>> -----Original Message----- From: g3zjo
>>>> Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2013 20:43
>>>> To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
>>>> Subject: Re: LF: Fwd: WSPR Test
>>>>
>>>> Yes I know it is always nice to see home brew, even from despicable
>>>> appliance operators.:-)
>>>>
>>>> Some recycling of some of my 500KHz rock bound modules.
>>>>
>>>> Eddie
>>>>
>>>> On 09/02/2013 19:22, Stefan Schäfer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 09.02.2013 19:58, schrieb g3zjo:
>>>>>> No time reference just very accurate PIC timing which is good for 
>>>>>> weeks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah yes. BTW when using e.g. a netbook in /p WSPR tests it is totally
>>>>> sufficient to sync the PC clock manually to your wrist watch (which
>>>>> was synced at home), if necessary. So it is not really a pro-argument
>>>>> for Opera that no timing is required. I've recently tested that at
>>>>> home with my own transmissions...
>>>>>
>>>>>> PA, yes tiny by your standards, but it is the PA that has been
>>>>>> growing recently.
>>>>> :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pictures please!
>>>>>> Oh dear do you really like rats nests?
>>>>> ...and dirty fingers, yes ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> 73, Stefan
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eddie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>