Mal, looking back at my post, I didn't say anywhere that "I have limited
knowledge". Perhaps you are confusing my post with one from someone else?
Confusion and memory issues are common traits in the elderly, so I wouldn't
worry about it too much if I were you.
As for "opinions" they too are rather commonplace in amateur radio with most
operators holding dear several of them.
I'm pleased to hear of your excellent QSO results, good stuff
Keep at it
With best regards
Jim
Dr. James Cowburn
E [email protected]
"The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is
addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you
are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not
read this message.
Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any
action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than
the intended recipient is prohibited. Consequently, this email is not
intended to be contractually binding.
If you received this in error, please contact the sender, return the message
as well as its attachments and delete the whole from any computer."
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of mal hamilton
Sent: 21 September 2009 18:12
To: [email protected]
Subject: LF: Re: RE: defence of WSPR Signals
James if you were a competent CW operator you would think different, like
you say you have limited knowledge.
WSPR beacons ARE a LAZY APPROACH no skills required and vy limited regarding
propagation predictions.
I had two nice solid QSO'S two nights ago on CW/QRS to Russia and Romania. I
did not need WSPR assistance. Any experienced CW operator can check a band
and give an opinion about propagation in real time, then proceed to make a
QSO.
G3KEV
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Cowburn" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 3:47 PM
Subject: LF: RE: defence of WSPR Signals
> Adding my thoughts to the debate, 500Khz and WSPR has rekindled my
> interest
> in radio and I am learning lots in new areas. As a G7 and not an expert
> in
> CW, if CW was the only means of communication on the band then I would not
> have been as able to participate, experiment and learn as I have done with
> WSPR. Additionally, the use of WSPR on other bands encouraged me on to
> 500
> as I was definitely "weak signal" and now I am trying and enjoying CW QSOs
> too.
>
> The database and software allow the analysis and deduction of lots of info
> and data from the reports and their locations.
>
> For me it is not a case of CW vs WSPR (or indeed other data modes e.g.
> WOLF)
> but far more having a go at them all in a challenging environment and
> giving
> the old grey matter a bit of a "run out" and learning some new stuff into
> the bargain i.e. self training.
>
> As I have said in other posts, it whacks the pants off 20m SSB for sense
> of
> achievement and enjoyment (as well as outright frustration!)
>
> I'm sure once we've all got WSPR sorted we'll be running WSJT in QSO mode
> and then we can exchange information as per the original poster's comment.
>
> Just my thoughts and YMMV
>
> With best regards
>
>
> Jim
>
>
> Dr. James Cowburn
> "The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is
> addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you
> are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not
> read this message.
> Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of
> any
> action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other
> than
> the intended recipient is prohibited. Consequently, this email is not
> intended to be contractually binding.
> If you received this in error, please contact the sender, return the
> message
> as well as its attachments and delete the whole from any computer."
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Peter Cleall
> Sent: 21 September 2009 14:18
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: LF: defence of WSPR Signals
>
> I have always been interested in propagation.
> These WSPR signals are seen by some as repetitious rubbish.
>
> If you use , WSPR, the Internet database and your own receptions you soon
> realise that there are subtle variations in signal particularly QSB that
> are
> different over day/ night paths, transitions at dawn and dusk and
> differences on N/S and E/W paths. Northern stations seem favoured for E/W
> propagation and distance between stations also has an effect.
>
> At last we have software and a process for examining in near real time the
> subtlety of these variations. We can see the signal reports from many
> distances and directions at the same time. I think we will learn a lot
> more
> over the winter if we continue with these tests. I would like to think
> that
> in the future we could have some coordinated test times which would get a
> greater number of receiving participants available at the same time.
>
> Personally I have been working on propagation with WSPR for several months
> on 30m. But the recent activity by Andy, Jim and others has resulted in
> me
> hunting out my 137kHz equipment that has not been used for a couple of
> years
> and rebuilding a converter to hear my first signals on 500khz , since the
> commercial stations disappeared. I can see from the other reports on the
> database that I need to do more work on Aerials and i suspect that I still
> have a lot to learn about signals and equipment overload. Thee existence
> of
> a few known reference signals is essential to improving ones equipment and
> knowledge. I t think this is all part of the spirit of amateur radio for
> our
> self education in radio techniques which is a major justification for us
> to
> have licenses.
>
> regards
> peterG8AFN
>
>
> Sep 21, 2009 10:52:38 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> ===========================================
>
> WSPR signals last evening copied from G4JNT, G4WGT, G7NKS and SM6BHZ on
> 500kHz. Also very strong signal during the day from M0BMU on 137kHz.My
> report of your DFCW signal on 137 the other day, Jim, had the wrong
> frequency - sorry about that, added the difference 20Hz rather than
> subtracted from my RX offset - should have been 137.68 of course.Tend to
> agree with Mal's comments, I am having difficulty in seeing the point of
> some of this when there is little in the way of exchanged information
> between stations. There is a place for beacons, certainly. What concerns
> me
> is that the casual listener tuning across the band probably has no idea
> there's anybody on.Vy 73,Chris, G4AYT, Whitstable, Kent, JO01MI.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.111/2386 - Release Date: 09/21/09
05:51:00
|
