Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

[Top] [All Lists]

Re: LF: RE: defence of WSPR Signals

To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: LF: RE: defence of WSPR Signals
From: "Graham" <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:26:13 +0100
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]

Yes your right, the onset of wspr activity on the 500 has paved the way for increased activity and out side interest, from previous data tests ran in the early day of the allocation, considerable interest was shown by data users , however, the main problem being that all the 'new' modes requires audio to carrier frequency translation and in some cases transmit chain linearity as well, which tended to prevent data operation by most users , the first two way rtty contact required the cw-fsk mode of a dds controlled transmitter to produce the frequency shift .. not quite its intended function .. but did the job
We may be watching a re run of the arguments surrounding the suite of K1JT
software , in that the point is made that you don't 'actually' have a qso
, so therefore its not communication in the true sense. But if the need
to use wspr results in more stations re configuring there transmit paths
to enable the frequency translation of audio to rf carrier, then the mode
has more than served its purpose ?
As Sail gave way to steam , so has Antenna 'amps' given way to CPU
'amps' ... but nothing wrong with a sail boat ..hihi
G ..

From: "James Cowburn" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 3:47 PM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: LF: RE: defence of WSPR Signals

Adding my thoughts to the debate, 500Khz and WSPR has rekindled my
in radio and I am learning lots in new areas. As a G7 and not an expert
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

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


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.


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 -
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.109/2384 - Release Date: 09/20/09 06:22:00

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>