A question for the coding experts here: WSPR is an excellent weak signal beaconing mode, but at what QRSS speed is QRSS "better" ? 73s Roger G3XBM -- http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/ http://www.g3xbm.c
I know what you're referring to. In cases of impulsive noise, there is a finite probability of something eventually getting through the decoder and being flagged as valid. The very nature of heavy
Jim take NOTE Impulsive noise generates a random output that looks like a valid callsign so this is also inventing a signal that you imagine to exist. An immediate positive ID, don't depend on it !!
Like the man says either you get something or NOTHING which is often the case, whereas with QRS you always get SOMETHING and since all radio amateurs are competent with morse code and where there is
WSPR works in a 1.46Hz signal bandwidth and because of its very high level of error correction and soft-decision decoding, means that it will work at a S/N of about 3dB in this bandwidth, and sometim
In the radio amateur context of course you know what you are expecting for a basic QSO, at least you are getting something meaningful whereas with wspr like you say you get nothing, hard to fill gaps
Hi Roger, Am 25.08.2011 00:21, schrieb Roger Lapthorn: Yes I agree Stefan. I just wanted a clear answer from someone like Andy regarding the theoretical difference between WSPR (with it's strong err
Hello Roger, OK about WSPR beeing about equal to QRSS-3 in sensitivity. But if you just want to test how far you can get with your signal, why don't you try QRSS-60? This must have an improvement of
Hi Marcelino Thanks for this. Yes I understand fully what is needed for LF/MF WSPR and have implemented simple and low cost WSPR solutions using transverters for both 136 and 500kHz with some excelle
Jim take NOTE Impulsive noise generates a random output that looks like a valid callsign so this is also inventing a signal that you imagine to exist. An immediate positive ID, don't depend on it !!
Graham Error free !!!!!!!!!! It often gets confused and invents callsigns and other info. Some would believe anything !! Keep pounding the key g3kev -- Original Message -- From: [email protected].
Ok Roger, Thank you! I will take a deep look into your website, I just read about your 137 khz transverter and found it a very interesting project. I would like to have enough time to start building
Hello Roger, OK about WSPR beeing about equal to QRSS-3 in sensitivity. But if you just want to test how far you can get with your signal, why don't you try QRSS-60? This must have an improvement of
It would be nice to start , with the opening statement 'all things being equal' but as 'we' all know that not quite the case , one of the problems being , not all stations can send all the modes and
QRSS has to show about 6 - 10dB in its signal bandwidth to be able to discern fully what is sent, although a slightly lower S/N may be useable when you 'know' what you should be receiving. (A form
Hi Graham, Am 24.08.2011 23:49, schrieb Graham: It would be nice to start , with the opening statement 'all things being equal' but as 'we' all know that not quite the case , one of the problems bein
Jim take NOTE Impulsive noise generates a random output that looks like a valid callsign so this is also inventing a signal that you imagine to exist. An immediate positive ID, don't depend on it !!
