Re: LF: WSPR T/A hole discussion

[Roger Lapthorn <rogerlapthorn@gmail.com>]

Agreed John. 

If about 2mW ERP gets me 1733km on 500kHz WSPR (regularly) then 1W ERP should be enough to cross the pond. QRP for ever!

73s
Roger G3XBM

On 6 November 2010 23:37, John GM4SLV <gm4slv@sighthound.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 22:25:33 +0100
"Roelof Bakker" <roelof@ndb.demon.nl> wrote:

> Looking forward to your comments,

Roelof, LF,

Erudite points well put, as ever.

One point keeps nagging at me.

If Jay is correct, and the number of strong (high power/efficient
antenna/high ERP/groundwave path) W stations is large enough to prevent
adequate reception of weak signals from Europe, then this also means
there will be no possibility of weak signal reception from other WD/WE
stations.

Why are they using such high power on WSPR?

What is the point of this if, as Jay says, everyone will continually be
being overloaded by their strong groundwave neighbo(u)rs?

Are the high power stations that Jay describes only interested in
reception reports from Europe, rather than from other W stations? If
they do want reports from W-land, then by Jay's argument, they will only
get reports from their near-neighbo(u)rs, as the weaker long distance
stuff will be blocked due to RX overload.

This can't be right?

I don't believe there is a problem of RX overload preventing reception
of weak signals (from where-ever), and if there is a problem then the
solution is to reduce TX power to the point that allows maximum
transmission distance, and minimum RX overload, rather then segregating
us into separate parts of the spectrum.

I still don't understand.

John
GM4SLV

-- 
http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/
http://www.g3xbm.co.uk
http://www.youtube.com/user/g3xbm
G3XBM   GQRP 1678    ISWL G11088