Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.67.23.138 with SMTP id ia10csp558056pad; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 09:11:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.13.83 with SMTP id f19mr3273356wic.54.1380298293131; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 09:11:33 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id ul8si3161752wjc.64.1969.12.31.16.00.00; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 09:11:33 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) client-ip=195.171.43.25; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) smtp.mail=owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1VPa8W-0001lz-GK for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 16:39:20 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1VPa8V-0001lq-OS for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 16:39:19 +0100 Received: from rhcavuit02.kulnet.kuleuven.be ([134.58.240.130] helo=cavuit02.kulnet.kuleuven.be) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1VPa8T-0006js-0H for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 16:39:18 +0100 X-KULeuven-Envelope-From: rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.be X-KULeuven-Scanned: Found to be clean X-KULeuven-ID: 9F7371280B9.A4EBF X-KULeuven-Information: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Received: from icts-p-smtps-1.cc.kuleuven.be (icts-p-smtps-1e.kulnet.kuleuven.be [134.58.240.33]) by cavuit02.kulnet.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F7371280B9 for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 17:39:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ICTS-S-HUB3.luna.kuleuven.be (icts-s-hub3.luna.kuleuven.be [10.112.9.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by icts-p-smtps-1.cc.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 292D54042 for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 17:39:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ICTS-S-MBX1.luna.kuleuven.be ([fe80::edaf:341f:90e:f70e]) by ICTS-S-HUB3.luna.kuleuven.be ([fe80::a470:76b3:406d:2b1a%27]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 17:39:07 +0200 X-Kuleuven: This mail passed the K.U.Leuven mailcluster From: Rik Strobbe To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" Thread-Topic: Re: QRSS OP WSPR Thread-Index: AQHOu4tUuOy0YiYk00OtrARDwwO1W5nZshr7gAAFKlE= Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:39:06 +0000 Message-ID: <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FC60574@ICTS-S-MBX1.luna.kuleuven.be> References: <5244AB81.8020503@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> ,<5245765A.3030301@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <52459149.7070307@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>,<00b401cebb94$29946cb0$6d01a8c0@DELL4> In-Reply-To: <00b401cebb94$29946cb0$6d01a8c0@DELL4> Accept-Language: nl-BE, en-GB, en-US Content-Language: nl-BE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.112.13.12] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-HELO-Warning: Remote host 134.58.240.130 (rhcavuit02.kulnet.kuleuven.be) used invalid HELO/EHLO cavuit02.kulnet.kuleuven.be - verification failed X-Spam-Score: -3.1 (---) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hi Stefan, Jay, I got similar results, see http://on7yd.strobbe.eu/QRSS/. WSPR-2 outperformed Opera-2 by 7 dB, and Opera-8 should be 6 dB better than Opera-2. [...] Content analysis details: (-3.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [134.58.240.130 listed in list.dnswl.org] -2.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: 6ae5fe68d6708d1e4a9cbdf0f0af43e5 Subject: LF: RE: Re: QRSS OP WSPR Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FC60574ICTSSMBX1lunaku_" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE, TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL 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 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 778 --_000_7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FC60574ICTSSMBX1lunaku_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Stefan, Jay, I got similar results, see http://on7yd.strobbe.eu/QRSS/. WSPR-2 outperformed Opera-2 by 7 dB, and Opera-8 should be 6 dB better than= Opera-2. 73, Riik ON7YD ________________________________ Van: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org [owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= ] namens jrusgrove@comcast.net [jrusgrove@comcast.net] Verzonden: vrijdag 27 september 2013 17:13 Aan: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Onderwerp: LF: Re: QRSS OP WSPR Stefan WSPR2 vs. OP4 http://www.w1vd.com/WSPROP4082312A.pdf . Basically, where WSP= R2 showed solid copy OP4 had a number of misses. Test conditions: Transmit end: single transmitter, single antenna - signals combined in comm= on TX setup Receive end: single receive antenna, single receiver, single computer/sound= card - WSPR and OP running simultaneously Power at TX end adjusted to provide weak signal at receive end. Standard we= ak signal receive setup was used ... complete with QRN, QRM, other signals = etc. Test began during daylight, proceded through the night and ended in da= ylight. Jay W1VD WD2XNS WE2XGR/2 WG2XRS/2 ----- Original Message ----- From: Stefan Sch=E4fer To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 10:08 AM Subject: LF: QRSS OP WSPR Bob, For QRSS reception on 4000m, better ask G4WGT or F5WK or F6CNI for a prefer= red frequency. Ort maybe TF3HZ? He is reading the reflector as well. At lea= st i saw the flag from Iceland on the flagcounter of SC8CS's new grabber wh= ich was announced here :-)) BTW, regarding OP65, Jay/W1VD recently did some tests comparing OP4 and WSP= R-2. The summary was something like "WSPR-2 is as "sensitive" as OP8" !!. C= orrect me Jay. That means, instead transmitting OP65, you could use WSPR-15= instead and may have 4 times higher probabbility to get a decode, e.g. if = there is just a short propagation window like on 137 kHz. 73, Stefan Am 27.09.2013 15:55, schrieb Bob Raide: Stefan; It is same here. But you can't do everything-transmit and receive at same = time no go. I have a similar PC got from neighbor last season a Samsung less than two y= ears old. Big difference from little ACER PC! I think I am going to stick with QRSS 60 for anymore 73 kHz work. What fre= q might be best for UK/Euro work? I understand that 72.4 is not good in UK= /Europe. Seems that 74.5-74.6 seems best from comments I am getting? Any suggestions appreciated-Bob --_000_7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FC60574ICTSSMBX1lunaku_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Stefan, Jay,

 

I got similar results, see http://on7yd.strobbe.eu/QRSS/.

WSPR-2 outperformed Opera-2 by 7 dB, and Opera-8 should be 6 dB=  better than Opera-2.

 

73, Riik  ON7YD

 

Van: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org [o= wner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] namens jrusgrove@comcast.net [jrusgrove@= comcast.net]
Verzonden: vrijdag 27 september 2013 17:13
Aan: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Onderwerp: LF: Re: QRSS OP WSPR

Stefan
 
WSPR2 vs. OP4 http://www.w1vd.com/WSPROP4082312A.pdf . Basically, where= WSPR2 showed solid copy OP4 had a number of misses.
 
Test conditions:
 
Transmit end: single transmitter,= single antenna - signals combined in common TX setup
 
Receive end: single receive antenna, s= ingle receiver, single computer/sound card - WSPR and OP running simul= taneously
 
Power at TX end adjusted to provide we= ak signal at receive end. Standard weak signal receive setup was used = ... complete with QRN, QRM, other signals etc. Test began during dayli= ght, proceded through the night and ended in daylight.   &nb= sp;
 
Jay W1VD  WD2XNS  WE2XGR/2&n= bsp; WG2XRS/2
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 10:= 08 AM
Subject: LF: QRSS OP WSPR

Bob,

For QRSS reception on 4000m, better ask G4WGT or F5WK or F6CNI for a prefer= red frequency. Ort maybe TF3HZ? He is reading the reflector as well. At lea= st i saw the flag from Iceland on the flagcounter of SC8CS's new grabber wh= ich was announced here :-))

BTW, regarding OP65, Jay/W1VD recently did some tests comparing OP4 and WSP= R-2. The summary was something like "WSPR-2 is as "sensitive"= ; as OP8" !!. Correct me Jay. That means, instead transmitting OP65, y= ou could use WSPR-15 instead and may have 4 times higher probabbility to get a decode, e.g. if there is just a short propagation wi= ndow like on 137 kHz.

73, Stefan

Am 27.09.2013 15:55, schrieb Bob Raide:
Stefan;
It is same here.  But you can't do everything-transmit and receive at = same time no go. 
I have a similar PC got from neighbor last season a Samsung less than = two years old.  Big difference from little ACER PC!
I think I am going to stick with QRSS 60 for anymore 73 kHz work. = ; What freq might be best for UK/Euro work?  I understand that 72.4 is= not good in UK/Europe.  Seems that 74.5-74.6 seems best from comments= I am getting?
Any suggestions appreciated-Bob
 
--_000_7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FC60574ICTSSMBX1lunaku_--