Re: LF: WSPR, QRSS, CW...

[Roger Lapthorn <rogerlapthorn@gmail.com>]

Dear Stefan,

You are, in the end, correct and I am sure that Mal G3KEV will already be writing his response in support of you email, HI.

However, my own experience has been that WSPR has made possible propagation experiments and equipment designs which, were I using CW, would not have been possible. Six months ago I believed you needed 50-100W, capacitors rated at hundreds of volts, antennas that resembled a military tracking station and a ground system with miles of radials to get anywhere. Then, with WSPR, I found out that very little was needed: a simple transverter made with a handful of parts, an ATU made with a small ferrite rod and thin copper wire, an antenna that is only 5m long and a ground that is, essentially, the copper pipes in my home. With this modest station I have learned a lot about MF propagation and had a great deal of real FUN. 

So, whilst I agree that a "real" CW or phone two-way QSO is a great and pleasurable part of ham radio, I do sincerely believe that WSPR, and indeed many other modern digital modes like JT65, JT4 etc have their place on the ham bands of today.

73s and a happy New Year to you.

Roger G3XBM

2010/1/10 Stefan Schäfer <schaefer@hst.tu-darmstadt.de>

Dear LF,

WSPR offers new dx records for all LF stations, sure. With QRSS/DFCW it is the same, compared to CW. Perhaps some stns will successfully do TA QSOs nw in wspr, congrats!

What will happen if in 2 years the next software will be available with even much better error correction and so on? What, if this software is so good that a QSO to VK will be possible?

I mean, does such a software not relativate the value or the personal meaning of a QSO? If you reach 5000km with a almost perfect software that does record and publish everything automatically, is the QSO then done by you due to your knowledge and your motivation to built up a good station and the time you (and the QSO partner) spent to get that contact? Or is it done by the software? Is the feeling about a confirmed two way contact the same in than in CW?

If anyone can run a beacon with 10W TX power into a dipole for 40m and WSPR accumulates all contacts over time, then it is just a question of time to get a time/moment of optimal propagation on lf and so you just have to look if the ODX increased and if not, just wait some days longer...

Is that the same feeling than after a difficult but successful CW contact? Really?

If we tend to say "WSPR is 5dB better than QRSS, so why are we still doing QRSS or even CW???", then we neglect this difference that appears to some of us.

For me, personally, WSPR seems to be interesting but not really a choice since a amateur radio QSO has something to do with a signal that has to be catched out of a noise by a human, not by a computer. I want to listen (or at least watch) to a signal that is followed by a human to the same time and want to get a personal information (not such as 599tu). Anything else is just in the region of a test that gets boring if the ODX does not increase any more and fast enough. And all the work will be relativated when the next, of course better, version comes out...

In my opinion, the more we let the pc do the work, the more we are apart to the human/ each other and the faster it gets boring.

Stefan/DK7FC

-- 

http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/
http://www.g3xbm.co.uk
http://www.youtube.com/user/G3XBM
G3XBM    GQRP 1678      ISWL G11088