WSJT7.02 is a Software Suite that includes WSPR. The JT65x and
FSK441 modes, the primary ones within that package, are designed for
V/UHF. Other modes aimed at use in different parts of the spectrum,
happen to be included too.
Andy G4JNT
www.g4jnt.com
2008/12/24 mal hamilton <[email protected]>:
> The software package that I am using states VHF/UHF and this includes WSPR
> mode WSJT 7.02
> As a professional Radio Office for a life time I have used every
> communications mode that has ever existed over the past 50 years.
> You must have missed this info in recent emails. I make the point again that
> CW has not been bettered in the radio amateur context for exchanging short
> messages, reports etc in a poor signalling environment.
> Most of the current modes are reinvented or alterations to what has gone
> before and taking advantage of modern sound cards and appliance operated
> computers. One difference now is that there is less operator involvement the
> PC does all the work and often unattended.
> These methods are not amateur radio but appliance operator systems like
> internet exchanges, mobile phones etc.
> There will be no amateur radio in another 50 years, keep your ears to the
> ground so many others are saying the same thing.
> If you need any advice or help with any system old or new just ask and I
> will be delighted to help.
> G3KEV
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Tilley" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 6:05 PM
> Subject: Why WSPR when you can SHOUT! was Re: LF: wspr
>
>
>> Mal
>>
>> WSPR was NOT designed for VHF/UHF and again if you could read you'd know
>> that after you had read the documentation I referred you to. It was
>> designed specifically for HF use in a high QSB environment and it works
>> very well there. In fact, it was designed with 30m in mind and the QRPP
>> beacons that operate there. I won't bother explaining further as you
>> don't seem to get the basic premises of signal theory and the techniques
>> employed for the design rationale of the mode.
>>
>> Also have a look here for more info on WSPR and the rationale for the
>> mode:
>> http://wsprnet.org/drupal/
>>
>> Before I will engage you further in a dialog about this or any other
>> mode I suggest you do some homework and learn how these modes work.
>> Like learning CW it takes time and dedication to understand the
>> technical and operating requirements for these modes. Just because you
>> can pound a key doesn't mean you have the right stuff to make any form
>> of meaningful judgment about this topic.
>>
>> I suggest you stop wasting bandwidth here and do some learning. And
>> then join the dialog with something meaningful.
>>
>> 73 Scott
>> VE7TIL
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> mal hamilton wrote:
>>>
>>> I did not ask a question about filtering !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Oh but you did old man.
>>
>>> What I said was why use SSB mode which is 3 khz wide for a 6hz/200 hz
>>> wide signal when one could take advantage of the receiver narrow CW
>>> filter
>>
>> We do! But it isn't necessary most of the time!!!! I told you why
>> earlier... I use my 300Hz filter most of the time with WSPR to keep LID
>> CW ops out of the passband.
>>
>>> , and of course this is filtered further by manipulation of the
>>> soundcard by software. This is old hat technology and not new.
>>> WSPR was engineered for VHF/UHF with plenty of frequency spectrum
>>> available and not MF/LF
>>
>> WRONG!
>>>
>>> squeezed into a 3 khz slot along with other more robust modes
>>> I am not opposed to any particular transmisson MODE but merely
>>> pointing out that the advantage claimed by some for WSPR is not
>>> justified in some cases and my recent observations indicate that I
>>> could have read the transmitted signal had it been ON/OFF CW, instead
>>> I had to wait ages for the signal to improve before text printed. This
>>> was the case last night with WE2XGR where the 2 minute interval trace
>>> was good enough to be read in on/off mode CW but not strong enough to
>>> print most of the time due to slow fade(QSB)
>>
>> You don't have enough experience or knowledge based on you comments to
>> intelligently comment on this in my opinion.
>>>
>>> I might even research WSPR further for comparison purposes but I
>>> cannot imagine that I will get a print out first before I see a trace.
>>
>> You have pretty high expectations for the mode! I have never heard of
>> any mode that you could decode without being able to see some form of
>> trace. Perhaps you're one of these CW op types that has ESP and has
>> QSOs with the little DX stations in your head? What don't like the fact
>> there is something in the world that can quantify reality?
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> G3KEV
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Tilley" <[email protected]>
>>> To: <[email protected]>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 5:00 AM
>>> Subject: Re: LF: wspr
>>>
>>>
>>>> If you could read you would do some research at K1JT's wonderful
>>>> website:
>>>> http://www.physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/
>>>>
>>>> Joe has laboured for many a year on similar projects and has written
>>>> much about his application of the art. What you will find is that
>>>> research into communication theory that started with CW has taken us
>>>> here...
>>>>
>>>> To answer your specific question the filtering is done in software. The
>>>> DSP is done in your PC, thereby making filtering in the radio somewhat
>>>> redundant unless you have strong neighbours in the passband. So using a
>>>> wide SSB filter and the radio in USB makes for easy math in ones head.
>>>> Yes, we digital types use our heads from time to time.
>>>>
>>>> Often with modes like JT65 used on EME and now quite popular on HF one
>>>> wants as much bandwidth as possible in the receiver so you can monitor
>>>> up to the entire band in real time. So lots of raw bandwidth into the
>>>> computer is a good thing...
>>>>
>>>> All BS aside, you may find the technology very interesting to study and
>>>> you may find that what you discover is that the spirit of the CW
>>>> operator of old is alive and well just evolving with the times.
>>>>
>>>> CW will never die as it has a rich history but it shouldn't be allowed
>>>> to impede the growth of new modes and technology.
>>>>
>>>> You should build yourself a Softrock SDR receiver or even a small
>>>> transceiver kit and witness a true revolution in radio technology. My
>>>> little 40/30m rig allows me to watch the entire band of either in real
>>>> time. With some new software you can monitor all of the CW QSOs at
>>>> once... Pretty cool.
>>>>
>>>> Not to mention you can plug a key into the little box and do what you
>>>> love most and work'm.
>>>>
>>>> 73 Scott
>>>> VE7TIL
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> mal hamilton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> If recent published info is correct, this specifies a bandwidth of 6hz
>>>>> why is USB with a bandwidth of 3 khz necessary to receive this
>>>>> transmission.
>>>>> Surely it would be obvious that CW mode was more appropriate where
>>>>> one could use a narrow filter and dsp processor of a few hertz.
>>>>> I have asked this question before but never got an answer.
>>>>> g3kev
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>>> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.0/1862 - Release Date:
>>> 12/23/2008 12:08 PM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.0/1862 - Release Date: 12/23/2008
> 12:08 PM
>
>
>
|
