Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

rsgb_lf_group
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: LF: RE: Re: FR5ZX on MF WSPR

To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: LF: RE: Re: FR5ZX on MF WSPR
From: "Graham" <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 13:02:13 -0000
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <3C386F463D28484AA74889615A91FD91@PCFausto>
References: <579355A36AEE9D4FA555C45D556003AB1B286613@servigilant.vigilant.local> <0ADAA2ADD4844DA1B2EC8471B7B28629@AGB> <D57E235998E446B7B855ACC37C7521C6@AGB> <3C386F463D28484AA74889615A91FD91@PCFausto>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
Hi Fausto
 
Well,  for  a  long time  the  minimal   frequency shift  in wspr  was  a  mystery as to  how  exactly  it extracted  data  when the  Doppler  spread was  many times the  shift  on hf  and as to  why time  and a  list of  call  signs  was so important, when all  the  other data  modes  , synchronised  from the  recovered  signal .  VW  emission software  uses  similar concepts 
 
Yes your right ,  correlation  , deep  search ,  Dynamic  , Ooop's  , Call  it  what  you  like, 'has'  to  know  what  is in the  noise , so  it  can  look  for the  pattern. Dynamic is provided  in the  Opera  system , 'only' for the  477  and  136  bands only ,  as a  second   pass , low  level  detector, set  at  ~ -5 / - 6 dB lower  . 
 
As the  name implies , the  system is  dynamically  engaged ,  and the  out put  from the  two  systems are  segregated , one being the  Opera  data  decode ,  with frequency ,  s/n and  % fade . the other is  stamped , 'Deep search'  with  s/n and frequency.  however , as you  note ,  other  systems , fail to  make the  distinction , or  provide a  solution to  the  problem. [ is it a  problem ?VW sold may cars ]
 
As  Opera  is not  time  locked ,  has no need ,  the  start  times  of  Tx stations  are  'random'  so  the  simple   solution  to  test if a  dynamic  detection  is   real or  false , is  compare the  RX time  stamp.
 
By  elapse  time  from a  Opera  decode +  frequency
By  compare to  other  Dynamic  detections + frequency
Manually  from  TX beacon ,
 
 The  issue remains  unaddressed in the  other  systems , compared to the  random pixilated out put  from the  traditional  'QRSS'  'part' call  sign  guessing  game ,  Dynamic provides a robust  reliable inaction of  low s/n detection  and  is  listed  in ADIF .
 
The  system will  work  with  U3/PIC  keyed  TX and  RX linked to  stand alone  PC , to  achieve the  full  range of  features , when using the  Dynamic  low s/n spots , at the  very least  the  Rx PC needs  to be  linked to the  WWW , to  both  upload your local  spot  , so  others  are able to  use the  time  stamp  and  receive the  output  from your  own  and other users via the  'system'   , with the  '??'  check  or not ....
 
Its true, the  beacon will  plot the  path  between  two  stations ,  but  for  most of the  477/136  stations the  s/n  levels  are  so low,  its not  possible  to  'hear'  the  other  for   a  live  qso , opportunities exist  for  477 , but  136  levels are  generally well  below  normal  CW or data  mode's,  I worked  V01NA from GB4FPR  with  60 watts  in live  CW  on 502 k , but  may be the  750 ft long wire  over the  sea  helped , : )
 
This was from  the  home qth , with  40 x 60 ft  inv L  and  250 watts  -  possibly  20 dB  short of   CW qso level ..
 
 
  May be  Luis can  get  JRos to  put the  data  mode back  in the  ROS  package 
 
73-Graham
G0NBD
 
 
 
   

Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2015 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: LF: RE: Re: FR5ZX on MF WSPR

Hi Graham and all,
 
I do not know if it is possible and I do not know if Opera use the same decoding sistem of JT65 but
for you it is possible that a ham receive some qsl card for 144 MHz EME qso in JT65 when in his life
he never made a QSO via EME in 144 MHz.
 
Permit me some doubt about these "deep search" systems.
It seems very similar to those that make QSOs with callbbok.
 
As you can see I do not like the digital modes because I want to be a fun to make a QSO and not my computer.
A digital QSO is a little how to send an SMS to a pretty girl instead of taking her out to dinner.
 
Ok for the importance of automated systems for understanding the propagation but when it is determined
that for a direction it is possible a QSO with traditional systems why do not make a real QSO?
 
Every day when I read the email I see dozens and dozens of WSPR reports, dozens and dozens of OPERA reports...
I rarely see a report of a real QSO,dozens and dozens of computers that work all night while operators are sleeping.
Maybe I'm a purist as says Luis but honestly the satisfaction of a CW QSO made by me and my key between the fingers,
although I am a average operator, is unmatched.
 
Maybe I'll never make a MF QSO with the US or Australia but I think that if on the other side there is a well-equipped
station is not impossible.
 
Take the example of EA5DOM, yesterday for the first time used the CW on 630m, does not seem to have had many
difficulties to make QSOs at distances similar to the WSPR reports that  has received so far.
 
Please forgive me, but this morning I woke up so ...
 
73, Fausto IK4NMF
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Graham
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: LF: RE: Re: FR5ZX on MF WSPR

''Not considered "real" decodes by the purists and so, garbaje qualifyed''
 
So  the  belief  structure  is  .
 
 ''Its possible  for  two   stations  to  randomly  detect the  same  station  call  sign  at  exactly  the  same  time''   
 
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>