Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

rsgb_lf_group
[Top] [All Lists]
<prev [Date] next>
[Advanced]
 <prev [Thread] next>

LF: Re: WSPR or QRSS: which is better?

from [James Moritz] [Permanent Link][Original]
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: LF: Re: WSPR or QRSS: which is better?
From: "James Moritz" <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:13:33 +0100
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btopenworld.com; s=s1024; t=1314205967; bh=77J/MapSwRd1UsZhq2Q1MWpo/aBIS0BFo1YtGIrnSb4=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE; b=qYF9pu9R6bIo8X3Xeye/KnneWHCNZetva75la5aG6DWr5vntTkPlRPgkQBtVrZpugkUELAI2MoaHJXwR2vIrF34ifMF8ZpvlTX2dTtOEi1jTus1xGgqifR2cECCLJ2amcIBnqR3h6IrKQSorPRchRgVPpoJAmhx6eZ3iXjAvaNM=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=btopenworld.com; h=DKIM-Signature:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE; b=ROF5/D1QtltH/YWZc23V2v/G93sF+PuVo48mgCpSV3KYnmHQK0Ak6b3WEJQGMDTpyKyosVuuKGb44f68rbGJ1LuwL1e3GHHnMkq0bM49o7pGcHOy/5Zq6vc54ZIcDubXDQwdlFNI4B5tVQYgbfZ/PgPb6vMB9Kwq/J8UcNmubPY= ;
Domainkey-status: good (testing)
In-reply-to: <CAHAQVWOwLaz104cZGhvbLr23zt+03-J2yMBTVm+Cep-rKFTmvw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHAQVWOwLaz104cZGhvbLr23zt+03-J2yMBTVm+Cep-rKFTmvw@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected] 

Dear Roger, LF Group,
From watching off-air signals, I would agree with Andy that WSPR and QRSS3
have roughly equal "sensitivity". But it depends also on band conditions. For example, on 500kHz a QRSS beacon signal can be expected to be fragmented much of the time by QSB at distances over a few hundred km, while WSPR can tolerate loss of quite a large portion of a sequence and still decode correctly. On the other hand, the bandwidth of QRSS can be tailored to suit conditions, a facility not currently available with WSPR. 

G3KEV wrote:

...and where there is fade or drop out you can fill the gaps...
...with whatever takes your fancy; garbage in, garbage out (a bit like e-mail reflectors ;-), but this is not receiving a signal, it is inventing a signal you imagine to exist. This may not be too important if you can identify the beacon by other means - usually by a pre-arranged frequency- and are just interested in monitoring how the level changes. But if anything is received at all, WSPR gives you immediate positive ID of a station, without requiring any external information. 

Cheers, Jim Moritz
73 de M0BMU
[More with this subject...]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date:  Re: LF: WSPR or QRSS: which is better?, Andy Talbot
Next by Date:  Re: LF: WSPR or QRSS: which is better?, mal hamilton
Previous by Thread:  Re: LF: WSPR or QRSS: which is better?, Stefan Schäfer
Next by Thread:  LF: NEW 137 LOOP, mal hamilton
Indexes:  [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]