Dear Klaus, Mal, LF Group, As far as being able to provide the information required in a beacon signal, I think WSPR and QRSS3 are roughly equivalent - they will function with similar signal and broa
Good points Mal. However CW for manual reception and QRSS, to be viewed on a waterfall display, are fine for all manner of uses and in extremis QRSS is probably more sensitive than WSPR. However QRSS
Klaus I agree with your observations. Currently there is too much guesswork and imagination instead of getting on with more positive modes until such time as something more realistic comes along. Wit
Hello Klaus, On the other hand, WSPR has the advantage of automatic recording. But that is not an advantage of the mode, it simply is the lack of a corresponding simple program that does the same wit
Dear LF Group, we should clearly differenciate between all aspects. A propagation study does not need any information transfer via the radio path other than confidence on the identity of the station
Dear LF Group, ....... Nevertheless, WSPR is not very near to the Shannon limit. I spent nearly all my leisure time of the last year with the design of a new digital ham radio QSO-mode HD43 that com
Hello Andy, Jim, Rik and all, yes it is just that what I wanted to point at: In a beacon mode we need not communicate information other than the confidence on the identity of the station "heard". Thr
And the problem with this is? It is intended to be used in this manner. However, if your PC clock was accurately set and you observed on a waterfall displar regular traces starting on exact even minu
On LF I do not think wspr is the correct mode to study propagation as suggested by some. Two procedures are required with the mode. First it has to be detected then analyised and decoded into a print
Automatic monitoring of the signal strength / frequency of CW beacon signals, including those that drift by a small amount, can be achieved using signal processing techniqes borrowed from the radar a
