Date   
Re: Woodpecker gone

John Kirby
 

 TNX Hans

I am lQQking forward to your next firmware edition and will order another QCX to put it in.

tnx agn
72 73
John
N3AAZ

Re: Is wsprnet falling to pieces again ?

M0RON
 

As Alan said, I'd posted the question on wsprnet to see if there was an appetite for a small fee to pay for an upgrade in server performance, only person to reply was Alan, G4ZFQ. 
With a response like that the admins aren't going to be bothered about making improvements for two people. I can only assume that all the other users of wsprnet are satisfied with the performance, at least on that site. 
Andy
--
The universe is made up of Protons, Neutrons, Electrons but contains only one M0RON.

Re: Woodpecker gone

Hans Summers
 

Hi John, all,

Please note that the QCX transceiver was designed as a monoband transceiver. At the time there was no intention to make it multi-band. If you change band by entering presets in a DIFFERENT band to the band that you selected on power-up the first time (or after a factory reset) then you *may* find that the oscillator does not work well - this would lead to what you are calling "woodpecker", it is caused by the PLL in the Si5351A periodically losing loop lock. This is because the Si5351A's internal VCO should be operated in the range 600-900MHz. When you select band at first power-up (or after Factory reset) then the correct constants are used to ensure that the VCO stays within range. But simply selecting a Preset in another band, may or may not work - you may push the VCO outside its range and there is no automatic correction for this. 

Hence currently the correct way to change band on a QCX, apart from all the hardware changes you should make (to the filters and Class-E resonant circuit), is to do a Factory Reset. NOT just select a Preset frequency in another band. Selecting a Preset frequency in another band is NOT the way the QCX was intended to operate. 

I will make a change in the next firmware revision so that it WILL work (the Si5351A Synthesizer, I mean) on changing bands by selecting a Preset Frequency in another band. But at the moment - woodpecker may well result if you do this... 

Another reason for the "woodpecker" is S-meter digital noise, there are a lot of variables here and grounding comes in to play, so some installations suffer it worse than others. I have heard it on when the gain is turned up high and the dummy load is plugged in but in all cases I have seen personally, the band noise is anyway high enough to drown out this S-meter "warble" which is generally at a low level. This behaviour is documented in the assembly manual. 

73 Hans G0UPL

On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 3:31 PM John Kirby <n3aaz_qrp_1@...> wrote:

My empirical findings...

A Woodpecker got into my first build couple years back but don't remember how/why it 'got gone'.

On this build It comes back when I change bands from 30 to 20
No woodpecker on 30
Loud an strong on 20
Go back to 30m via "1 Preset" and RIGHT double press "select freq preset"  Woodpecker gone.

Then go back to 20m (1 Preset = 14074) via same method woodpecker gone UNTIL I tune up from 14074 to 14100 and above then woodpecker comes back.

This  is repeatable and happens every time.

Variable power supply (10 / 14 V) makes no differnce.


WHY?  I dont know
How ever some FYI
On this current build and FIRST power up, I chose 30m from Menu 3.9 'Band configure once at start up' and alignment procedure goes perfect.

Only problem as noted above woodpecker on 20m

Today after 'Factory rst' Menu 7.8 then cycle power OFF then ON  I choose 20m from Menu 3.9 and Alignment (menu 8.8, 8.9, 8.10, (R27, R24, R17)) results makes very little (if any) difference.

Then input 10000 WWV, 10120 and 14074 into '1 Preset'

WOODPECKER GONE on band change reguardless of 20m freq.

Caution, especially if a GPS is in the loop, before FACTORY RESET be sure to record current settings from ...

menu 8.5  Ref freq 27  mHz
 and
menu 8.6 System freq 20 mHz

then input these settings back into 8.5, 8.6  after factory reset.

I use WWV to 'calibrate' both 8.5 and 8.6

72 73
John
N3AAZ

Re: Anyone using a Wellbrook wide aperture loop for QRP reception?

Chris Wilson
 

Hello _Dave_K0MBT,

 Monday, September 23, 2019

 Thanks Dave, I use a fairly big (480 or so foot circumference0 horizontal quad loop for HF reception and transmission and it's quiet and effective. I feed it at one corner with window line. For LF i strap the feeder together at ground level and by using a matching transformer and loading coil, use if for LF and MF. I acquired the Wellbrook and whilst it's a bit deaf on the higher bands it's pretty good on LF and MF. I need to optimize the loop area and its orientation, but I am surprised just how good it is in a small space, and at a lowish height!


Best regards,
 Chris    2E0ILY       
mailto:chris@...



I use a homemade 1300' loop. It is bare 14 awg galvanized steel wire over the tops of trees and stretched across pastures.  Fed by homemade ladder line. Is almost invisible as the silver wire reflects what is around it. 

Use it for reception and transmission. Works good for both.

Also have a small delta loop 460' of same construction, and an efhw 40. The big loop is quieter and most of the time has the most gain. 

What is weird is that sometimes the signal strength of a received signal is less on the big loop but the signal strength that is missing is the noise. The other station may send me a s9  received signal when I run the big loop  and an s5 with the small loop or efhw. So I know it is getting out good. 

About a year ago I started asking myself what is the point of diminishing returns on making a loop antenna longer. To date have not answered  that question. 

Have felt that adding a pre amp was a way to add another stage of signal distortion and noise. 
-- 
73
Dave
k0mbt
Ham_Made_Keys

--
Best regards, Chris Wilson (2E0ILY)

Woodpecker gone

John Kirby
 


My empirical findings...

A Woodpecker got into my first build couple years back but don't remember how/why it 'got gone'.

On this build It comes back when I change bands from 30 to 20
No woodpecker on 30
Loud an strong on 20
Go back to 30m via "1 Preset" and RIGHT double press "select freq preset"  Woodpecker gone.

Then go back to 20m (1 Preset = 14074) via same method woodpecker gone UNTIL I tune up from 14074 to 14100 and above then woodpecker comes back.

This  is repeatable and happens every time.

Variable power supply (10 / 14 V) makes no differnce.


WHY?  I dont know
How ever some FYI
On this current build and FIRST power up, I chose 30m from Menu 3.9 'Band configure once at start up' and alignment procedure goes perfect.

Only problem as noted above woodpecker on 20m

Today after 'Factory rst' Menu 7.8 then cycle power OFF then ON  I choose 20m from Menu 3.9 and Alignment (menu 8.8, 8.9, 8.10, (R27, R24, R17)) results makes very little (if any) difference.

Then input 10000 WWV, 10120 and 14074 into '1 Preset'

WOODPECKER GONE on band change reguardless of 20m freq.

Caution, especially if a GPS is in the loop, before FACTORY RESET be sure to record current settings from ...

menu 8.5  Ref freq 27  mHz
 and
menu 8.6 System freq 20 mHz

then input these settings back into 8.5, 8.6  after factory reset.

I use WWV to 'calibrate' both 8.5 and 8.6

72 73
John
N3AAZ

Re: Is wsprnet falling to pieces again ?

 

On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 12:32 PM, Alan de G1FXB wrote:
Unfortunately WSPR is perhaps now the black sheep of the WSJT-X family, no longer receiving any active attention by developers or website admins
It doesn't make sense not to receive active attention by the devs, when considering it's popularity <shrugs_shoulders>.

73 de Andy

Re: Is wsprnet falling to pieces again ?

 

Small diversion here...

I was access wsprnet through my Linux Lynx text browser and noticed something that doesn't show up on the usual GUI browsers.
A reference to an RSS feed (see attached screen shot)).
I don't have time to test, or an email or RSS feed app to try it out, maybe someone else can if they are bored ;-)

73 de Andy

Re: Is wsprnet falling to pieces again ?

Alan de G1FXB
 

While *ANY* database contains incorrect reports it makes it's use as a definitive path indicator impossible.

Likewise I was under the impression PSK did not show results for WSPR.
Perhaps email the stations shown on the PSK map indicating? WSPR spots, and make sure they are valid WSPR reports and not another mode.

Taking a clue from the WSPR.net forum, a large number of users run unattended relying on the vagaries of CAT interfaces to control their station,
Sometimes for weeks on end.
Hence the numbers of reporting "uploaded Wrong band" Admin(s) please delete change to, that get posted weekly....

We can fault the misuse of TX stations hammering every timeslot or excessive power, but there is the responsibility for accuracy to the reporting stations who upload their data.
I know for sure I have never TX'ed a 6M WSPR signal, ever.
Yet I have being reported.....

Unfortunately WSPR is perhaps now the black sheep of the WSJT-X family, no longer receiving any active attention by developers or website admins



Alan

On 24/09/2019 11:31, Andy Brilleaux via Groups.Io wrote:

I must admit to feeling a little mislead by pskreporter, as when I contributed to this thread I saw quite clearly a map,
where a few days ago with a handful of WSPR spots (about 4).

So I checked again a few minutes ago.

I have attached a screen shot, of a database search of ALL bands by any call sign in the last 24 hours.

It shows 2 spots, one from France and one from Russia, and I've even hovered the mouse over one to prove the date.

Even more confusion :-(

73 de Andy



--
Light travels faster than sound this is why some people appear bright until you hear them

Re: Is wsprnet falling to pieces again ?

Alan G4ZFQ
 

On 24/09/2019 10:39, Alan G4ZFQ via Groups.Io wrote:
It is not in my drop-down
Strange, looked four times, looked on another PC, saw it instantly. Now I see it on the first...
It shows that two people have uploaded a few spots in the last 24 hours. (All bands)
Not showing any of my spots yet. I suspect WSJT-X does not upload there? It may be done manually or by another program?

73 Alan G4ZFQ

Re: Is wsprnet falling to pieces again ?

N1BUG
 

I tried to resist getting into this discussion but it got the better
of me.

As Chris pointed out, the problem is bigger than WSPRnet being
unresponsive when trying to check spots. It often times out and
fails to accept uploads. So even if it is responsive when you check
what stations have spotted you, don't count on that data being
complete. What a shame.

It is unfortunate that this continues. Yes, I know it is a hobby but
it seems to me those in charge either lack the skill or interest to
keep it running smoothly. Reading the forum it seems the problem has
many times been fixed temporarily by rebooting the server. To me
this suggests a server problem but at the very least why not have it
automatically reboot once ever 24 hours? Surely a couple minutes of
down time each day would be better than the frequent prolonged
problems and lost data? I'm no expert on servers, but surely there
must be a simple way to configure it for periodic reboots if it
cannot be made to remain stable without them??? Does the owner even
care any more? I have to wonder.

I would surely be willing to make a small periodic financial
contribution if it would help to fix this long standing problem.

Regarding WSPR vs. FT8... OK, FT8 may be adequate for HF propagation
monitoring or study but it would not work on some bands because it
needs much stronger signal to succeed. Forget about it on LF!

73,
Paul N1BUG

Re: Is wsprnet falling to pieces again ?

Kārlis Goba
 

It could well be that the mode list in the drop-down box is composed from the actual reports that are sent in via API. The API documentation does not specifically prohibit WSPR: https://pskreporter.info/pskdev.html. Quote:

"mode 30351.10 string The mode of the communication. One of the ADIF values for MODE or SUBMODE."

Would be interesting to send a test upload query to pskreporter. I will try later perhaps.

--
Karlis YL3JG

Re: Is wsprnet falling to pieces again ?

Alan G4ZFQ
 

On 24/09/2019 10:32, Andy Brilleaux via Groups.Io wrote:
See screen shot on last message.
It is not in my drop-down

Re: Is wsprnet falling to pieces again ?

Alan G4ZFQ
 

On 24/09/2019 10:36, Chris Wilson wrote:
so where is
the IP address for wsprnet.org, is it hard coded and inaccessible and
unchangeable?
As far as I know.

Re: Is wsprnet falling to pieces again ?

Alan G4ZFQ
 

I have attached a screen shot, of a database search of ALL bands by any call sign in the last 24 hours.
Andy,

How do you get WSPR in the Mode box?
By your theory I'm uploading 20m spots as I have the box ticked in WSJT.

73 Alan G4ZFQ

Re: Is wsprnet falling to pieces again ?

Chris Wilson
 

Hello Alan,

Tuesday, September 24, 2019

This is what I was getting at above it's not made clear that
pskreporter is limited to spots OTHER than wspr spots, so where is
the IP address for wsprnet.org, is it hard coded and inaccessible and
unchangeable? I stress that I know it's a free service run, I again
presume as a hobby at personal cost to the server owner, but the
business man in me cannot help smelling an earner for someone with a
modestly charged alternative! But whereas I can tell you if an F1
engine is economically repairable I am certainly not able to say if a
pay as you go alternative to the current set up is financially
viable. Someone here probably is though...?


Best regards,
Chris 2E0ILY mailto:chris@...


Has anyone worked out why wspr reporting does not work on pskreporter?
AG> Andy,

AG> OK, There is a setting in WSJT-X. Does this apply to WSPR?
AG> Has PSK Reporter any facility to receive WSPR spots? I do not see it.
AG> Just about every mode but.

AG> 73 Alan G4ZFQ


AG>



--
Best regards, Chris Wilson (2E0ILY)

Re: Is wsprnet falling to pieces again ?

 

On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 11:23 AM, Alan G4ZFQ wrote:
Has PSK Reporter any facility to receive WSPR spots? I do not see it. Just about every mode but.
Hi Alan,

See screen shot on last message.

Regards,

Andy

Re: Is wsprnet falling to pieces again ?

 

Further info, but this time slightly confusing.

The WSJT-X documentation available here -
http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/wsjtx-doc/wsjtx-main-2.1.0.html
makes mention of the pskreporter option, and does not appear to differentiate between what modes are uploaded.

But I just spotted that the quotation from pskreporter mentions FT8.

A scan around the wsprnet forums comes up with some posts, that mention that it doesn't apply to WSPR spots.

So actually the situation is worse, we're back to square one, not even the option for pskreporter WSPR spots !

I must admit to feeling a little mislead by pskreporter, as when I contributed to this thread I saw quite clearly a map,
where a few days ago with a handful of WSPR spots (about 4).

So I checked again a few minutes ago.

I have attached a screen shot, of a database search of ALL bands by any call sign in the last 24 hours.

It shows 2 spots, one from France and one from Russia, and I've even hovered the mouse over one to prove the date.

Even more confusion :-(

73 de Andy

Re: Is wsprnet falling to pieces again ?

Alan G4ZFQ
 

Has anyone worked out why wspr reporting does not work on pskreporter?
Andy,

OK, There is a setting in WSJT-X. Does this apply to WSPR?
Has PSK Reporter any facility to receive WSPR spots? I do not see it. Just about every mode but.

73 Alan G4ZFQ

Re: Is wsprnet falling to pieces again ?

Chris Wilson
 

Hello Hans,

 Tuesday, September 24, 2019

 I am curious as to where the IP address of wsprnet.org (to which I assume wspr spots are uploaded) is coded and if, for purely academic reasons, it could be changed? I have never really understood why the box for sending spots to pskreporter is there if pskreporter is unable to process and show wspr spots. All seems a bit odd to me me which suggests i don't fully grasp how it works or is supposed to work.


Best regards,
 Chris    2E0ILY       
mailto:chris@...



Hi Ken

People will get academic on you and talk about the difference between weak signal and low power. For EME for example, weak signal doesn't necessarily mean low power. 

The situation is more silly too because 6 bits are used for power, which means 64 possible values of power. But the protocol only allows 19 values 0dBm, 3, 7, 10, 13, etc... the other 45 values are not used and are wasted. 

But I think once a protocol is published and out there, popular and heavily used, it makes it hard to change later! Backwards compatibility issues etc.

73 Hans G0UPL 
http://qrp-labs.com 

On Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 10:12 KEN G4APB via Groups.Io <lfoofui.nbz42=ntlworld.com@groups.io> wrote:
I often wonder why wspr was coded to allow for powers up to 1kw for supposedly a ‘weak signal mode’ and doesn’t cater for the uW levels. I also miss the earlier versions that showed who was only monitoring/receiving in one colour and who was actively transmitting in another colour.
Has anyone worked out why wspr reporting does not work on pskreporter? I sometimes look at that when wsprnet us down but it never seems to show any spots.
73 ken g4apb. 

--
Best regards, Chris Wilson (2E0ILY)

Re: Is wsprnet falling to pieces again ?

 

I for got to add further proof.

Taken from the https://pskreporter.info/

WSJT-X

This is the client that most people use for decoding FT8. It includes integration with PSK reporter. To enable reporting, you need to enter the following information into the settings or preferences panel.
  • On the general tab, you should enter your callsign and your locator. Enter at least a six character locator as it marks your location on the map with more accuracy.
  • On the frequencies tab, you should specify your antenna (on a per-band basis).
  • On the reporting tab, just check the checkbox to enable PSK Reporter Spotting.

OK so we've had a good discussion and a good moan in thread, so let's move on to two basic questions.

- Why is the pskreporter option unchecked by default. A review of the archives of this group and wsprnet's OWN forums reveals
that the problems have been pointed out for at least 8 years.

- And in the full knowledge of this, have the options STILL been restricted ?

This evidence points towards policy, which I don't feel is in the users best interests.

73 de Andy