Thanks Eddie.
I think WSPR2 is roughly equivalent to QRSS10, so some 5dB(?) better than
QRSS3. It is possible that people did not detect the QRSS3 signal because of
this, but more probable that the "manual" decode required did not happen.
There is NO doubt in my mind that WSPR in all its flavours is an excellent
research tool because of the Internet feedback.
73s
Roger
(137kHz WSPR2 still running overnight)
On 30 Jan 2013, at 21:35, g3zjo <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Roger
>
> I did take a look for you last night but QRM levels here, interference like
> heavy theater curtains, means 136KHz is a no go area for me unless whoever it
> is stops doing what ever it is.
>
> I am also doing it the difficult way still, running my 200uW TX on WSPR and
> QRSS on 475KHz producing regular spots from the UK, DL, PA and F. However
> confirming my previous tests the QRSS3 may as well not be there. Not one
> report received even from a UK station.
> This is with the QRSS between WSPR transmissions in the WSPR window. If the
> mode was the slightest bit comparable then surely it would produce a comment
> even if those seeing the signal cannot resolve a call sign or the unique
> identification Morse symbol.
>
> I will now duck whilst it is mathematically proven that all who are decoding
> the WSPR are copying the QRSS3 just fine.:-)
>
> Eddie
>
> On 30/01/2013 17:08, Roger Lapthorn wrote:
>> My LF WSPR2 tests using the earth-electrode antenna and 30uW ERP max
>> continue this evening. With 2 unique reports yesterday (G8HUH 250km and
>> M0GXM 18km, both multiple times), I'm hopeful that others will copy me this
>> evening.
>>
>> Please take a look for me if you get a chance. All spots really appreciated.
>>
>> 73s
>> Roger G3XBM
>> --
>> --
>> http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/
>> http://www.g3xbm.co.uk
>> https://sites.google.com/site/sub9khz/
>> http://qss2.blogspot.com/
>> http://www.youtube.com/user/G3XBM
>
>
|
