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
| 