Dear Mike, LF Group,
Is it better than QRSS?
It *is* QRSS8 (in Op32 mode), only instead of morse code, it uses an
error-correcting code of some sort, details closely guarded by Mr. Ros.
However, I have not yet seen any evidence that it can beat QRSS at
the most marginal level.
Op32 sends a callsign in 32 minutes, which for throughput is about the same
as QRSS30 or DFCW60. I guess under marginal conditions, it is very roughly
comparable with those modes. The difference is that Opera gives you a
"binary" result - either perfect copy / positive ID, or nothing at all,
while QRSS gives you a result varying from "traces of signal" through "some
bits missing but very likely your signal" to "solid O copy". So a marginal
QRSS beacon signal might give you at least a partial result under conditions
where Opera yields nothing but a blank screen, and you can usually increase
the confidence of station identification from other information, such as
knowing who is active, what frequency is being used, etc. On the other hand,
if the Opera screen shows "G3XDV" once, you can be practically certain you
have received G3XDV even if you have no other knowledge of 136k operations,
and you don't have to spend any time trying to interpret the results.
If Opera evolves into a QSO mode, I guess Op32 would be the slowest
practical format to use; it would allow a "rubber stamp" QSO with callsigns,
reports and confirmation exchanged within a few hours - much longer than
that would be rather impractical. The faster formats would certainly be
feasible where the shorter-duration QRSS modes are currently used. For DX
beacon use on 136k, Op32 isn't quite enough, and there is no great pressure
on time - I definitely think there is a case for trying Op64, Op128...
I think nice features of Opera are:
-Easy and non-critical to set up and use
-Can be used with a simple CW TX
-"Slow" Op32 option better suited to 136k DX than other comparable modes,
e.g. WSPR
-Automated reception with web-based reporting
-Simultaneous multi-mode reception
I think the current down-sides are:
-The "black box" nature of the package - not knowing what it is you are
using, what it is doing (especially via the internet), having few control
options
-Seems to put a lot of load on the CPU
-When I download the latest version, I don't want to go on a date ;-)
Cheers, Jim Moritz
73 de M0BMU
|
