Re: LF: Re: Re: WSPR

[Scott Tilley <sthed475@telus.net>]

Hey Mal

80 or 40m for HF QRG?

Scott


mal hamilton wrote:
> Sri Scott
> I do not use beacon mode only QSO mode. If you want to try xband let 
> me know your QRG on HF. I have worked VE7 on every band from 1.8 - 28 
> Mcs. Only CW or QRS3 tx this end.
>
> 73 de mal/g3kev
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Tilley" <sthed475@telus.net>
> To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 8:59 PM
> Subject: Re: LF: Re: Re: WSPR
>
>
> > Hey Mal
> >
> > Would you consider firing up a QRSS beacon for a couple of hours before
> > and during your sunrise in the NA waterhole  137778.0Hz +/- 3Hz?
> >
> > DCF39 has been audible for the last couple of nights and it may be our
> > time to get a signal from EU into the west coast of NA.  I'd like to see
> > how the path works while open and see whether there is a possibility of
> > QSO in the future.
> >
> > Here's your chance at another first...
> >
> > TU es 73
> > Scott
> >
> >
> > mal hamilton wrote:
> > > Two points
> > >
> > > Why waste 2.4 kHz when QRS only needs a few Hz with a better S/N ratio.
> > >
> > > You agree that a faint trace is visible. If this faint trace was QRS
> > > mode only a few Hz bandwidth would be necessary to read the
> > > intellegence and the signal/noise would be superior.
> > > G3KEV
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clemens Paul" <cpaul@gmx.net>
> > > To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> > > Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 7:23 PM
> > > Subject: LF: Re: WSPR
> > >
> > >
> > > > Mal,
> > > >
> > > > > WSPR reports amongst stns indicate reception reports usually minus
> > > > > dB. Most of these
> > > > > stations are usually PLUS
> > > > > dB with me or very close to that figure.
> > > > WSPR refers the indicated SNR to a BW of 2,4kHz.
> > > > So if your receiving BW is say 100Hz your actual SNR is better by
> > > > ~14dB than WSPR
> > > > reports.
> > > >
> > > > > A trace of the signal is visible long before a decode takes place,
> > > > > therefore why
> > > > > not use QRS in
> > > > >the first place.
> > > >
> > > > This may be an issue of your RX/soundcard setup.
> > > > I can assure you that with my Perseus SDR RX,set to a RBW of less
> > > > than one Hertz
> > > > for the display,I can decode every WSPR signal which shows even only
> > > > a faint trace on
> > > > the waterfall diagram.
> > > > At least this is my experience so far.
> > > >
> > > > 73
> > > > Clemens
> > > > DL4RAJ
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: mal hamilton
> > > > To: rsgb
> > > > Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 7:37 PM
> > > > Subject: LF: WSPR
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WSPR reports amongst stns indicate reception reports usually minus
> > > > dB. Most of these stations
> > > > are usually PLUS dB with me or very close to that figure.
> > > > So what does that prove. I would say it depends on the RX antenna and
> > > > not necessarily
> > > > propagation. A large antenna yields better results than a small loop
> > > > or active whip.
> > > > When I switch from my 1/4 wave inv L for 500 khz to a smaller 40 m
> > > > resonated loop for 500 the
> > > > signals then do go down to a minus db figure.
> > > > So what is all this all ABOUT ?
> > > > There is also the TX pwr to consider. Two transmitters from the same
> > > > location one using QRO
> > > > and the other QRP will be received at different levels at a specified
> > > > RX location. There is a
> > > > lot of misrepresentation and misleading information by WSPR operator
> > > > A trace of the signal is visible long before a decode takes place,
> > > > therefore why not use QRS
> > > > in the first place.
> > > >
> > > > G3KEV
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > > > Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.55/2489 - Release Date:
> > > > 11/08/09 07:37:00
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > > Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.55/2489 - Release Date:
> > > 11/08/09 07:37:00
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.55/2489 - Release Date: 
> 11/08/09 07:37:00