Hummmmm, It looks like I have to tune my spam filter again..
la5vna S
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of mal hamilton
Sent: 1. februar 2012 18:22
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: LF: Re: Opera v qrs evaluation
Cheating did you say ?? How did it help you ? It drove you underground amongst
the gas es water utilities.
Have you surfaced yet ? Keep smiling !!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Lapthorn" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: LF: Re: Opera v qrs evaluation
Hi Eddie et al,
There is no doubt that the greatest value of modes like WSPR and OPERA (in
addition to their ability to work with very weak signals)
is that monitoring and reporting is automated and via the Internet. Some may
think this is cheating, but if the aim is to see how
signals propagate and what the effect of antenna or rig changes are, then
surely pinging reports via an Internet database is
perfectly valid. WSPR helped me this way a lot.
Good luck with your ongoing tests. There ARE people here who are interested in
the results based on good experiments and careful
measurements. Sadly Mal is only worried about the size of his kit.
73s
Roger G3XBM
-- Via my iPod Touch 4g --
On 1 Feb 2012, at 09:29, qrss <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mal
>
> Fact. Everyone including G3KEV has missed my QRS3 and QRS10 on 500kHz
every time I have had it on, using this same TX, in fact I removed the PIC
which sends the QRS and inserted OPERA, viola PA0's at
493km decode me.
>
> Please be technical not emotional about the subject it doesn't help.
>
> 73 Eddie
>
>
> On 01/02/2012 09:10, mal hamilton wrote:
>> QRSS does NOT get lost or missed in the noise as you suggest and one
>> can always see at least part of the information trace, whereas Opera
>> is all
or
>> nothing and I have noticed at times a TRACE but NO DECODE.
>> I wonder what your next distortion of the facts will be g3kev
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "qrss"<[email protected]>
>> To:<[email protected]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 11:37 PM
>> Subject: Re: LF: Re: Opera v qrs evaluation
>>
>>
>>> Dear Jim, Rik, Laurence
>>>
>>> Thanks for the information, it does seem from all tests that QRS3
>>> and
>>> OP4 are about equivalent.
>>> QRS as we know takes a human to notice its there among noise and can
>>> get missed. With OPERA (and WSPR) if there is an RX on in range it's
de-coded.
>>>
>>> 73 Eddie G3ZJO
>>>
>>>
>>> On 31/01/2012 22:51, James Moritz wrote:
>>>> Dear Eddie, LF Group,
>>>>
>>>> I did a rough and ready comparative test on the "sensitivity" of
>>>> QRSS3 and Op4 using your back-to-back transmissions. For 500kHz
>>>> reception, broadband noise from the broadcast stations just east of
>>>> here is being nulled out using a loop oriented N-S. Rotating the
>>>> loop out of the null position gives a convenient way of adjusting
>>>> the SNR on Eddie's signal. So I increased the noise level until I
>>>> judged Eddie's QRSS was just fully readable (using 0.3Hz FFT
>>>> resolution), then left everything in the same position for 4
>>>> transmissions, during which signal and noise levels stayed nearly
>>>> constant (see the attachment). Opera reported an SNR of -31dB on
>>>> Eddie's Op4 signal for all the
>> transmissions.
>>>> So, from what Graham said, Op4 may have a small margin in SNR with
>>>> these conditions. You could argue about what constitutes "readable"
>>>> QRSS, but there can't be more than a few dB difference between this
>>>> signal and something indecipherable without prior knowledge. It
>>>> takes
>>>> 4 minutes to send a callsign using Op4; you could increase the dot
>>>> length perhaps to 4s and transmit most callsigns in 4 minutes,
>>>> which would gain you about 1.2dB. But for practical purposes I
>>>> think, in this test anyway, the two modes are approximately
>>>> equivalent in their efficiency in sending callsigns.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, Jim Moritz
>>>> 73 de M0BMU
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
