|
Well, my Ultimate 3s arrived today! (Along with some extras). Hopefully have it up and running by the 4th of July.
But stage 2 of the project comes to mind, that radiating gizmo often referred to as an antenna. Personally I plan on building a multi band Fan antenna (dipole). At the house I have a 40' tree, but it would have to be at a 45 degree angle. I may set up in the local park at times where I can easily go horizontal at 60' (small park, but has 5 Banyan trees).
Just curious on what everyone else runs for their beacon. And apologize if this topic is either off, or been covered.
Victor
KC8CKZ
|
|
|
Victor,
WSPR is probably the best mode for antenna testing...
Results are available almost immediately
http://wsprnet.org/drupal/
http://wsprnet.org/drupal/wsprnet/spots
http://wsprnet.org/drupal/wsprnet/activity
Appears your lQQking for a multi band, field and/or home QTH
Check out the magic of a long wire fed with a 9:1 UNUN
https://udel.edu/~mm/ham/randomWire/
https://vk6ysf.com/longwire_antenna.htm
http://www.hamuniverse.com/randomwireantennalengths.html
AND off the shelf and one of the best Field Day ants out there easy to setup AND works as advertised !!!"MULTI BAND, NO TUNER"!!!
AND of course add a tuner for 1:1 ....
http://www.ultimax-antennas.com/store/p10/ULTIMAX_HW-END_FED_%28NO_TUNER_ANTENNA%29.html
72 73
John
N3AAZ
|
|
|
As John said , an End Fed Half Wave ( Not an End Fed Long Wire ) would offer great performance. However , they are so easy to build ( and clearly you are a builder ) that I'd suggest you just make one yourself and save over a hundred bucks. There is a very active Facebook group devoted to just that antenna. I've built three : One for 40, 20, 10 for home ; One 80 and down for field use and one that is for 30 and 15 ( and almost 17 ) for field use.
I also carry a HEARC (Hawaiian Emergency Amateur Radio Club) 9:1 all band , but you MUST use an antenna matcher.
73
K7AOZ
|
|
|
My Wspr transmit antenna is a random length of wire, around 25m long and 4m high, very thin hook up wire, covers 80-10. This goes straight into a tuner, ground is 8 x 4 foot copper clad steel ground rods in series.
With 0.5w from UK it has been heard in VK, regularly, south Africa, USA, Europe and Russia. Even a very inefficient antenna will work with wspr, a 5m wire, 1.5m high and a 3m counterpoise on 40 still got to America and reunion island from the back garden.
Build the kit and I'll see if I can spot you. Good luck.
Andy
--
The universe is made up of Protons, Neutrons, Electrons but contains only one M0RON.
|
|
|
" On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 9:32 AM Al Szymanski via Groups.Io <aszy= mac.com@groups.io> wrote: As John said , an End Fed Half Wave ( Not an End Fed Long Wire ) would offer great performance. However , they are so easy to build ( and clearly you are a builder ) that I'd suggest you just make one yourself and save over a hundred bucks. There is a very active Facebook group devoted to just that antenna. I've built three : One for 40, 20, 10 for home ; One 80 and down for field use and one that is for 30 and 15 ( and almost 17 ) for field use.
I also carry a HEARC (Hawaiian Emergency Amateur Radio Club) 9:1 all band , but you MUST use an antenna matcher.
73
K7AOZ"_._,_._,_ Mostly on the web you will find construction articles for an EFHW "coupler" based around an auto-transformer sometimes with a resonated primary often with a 7:1 or 8:1 turns ratio (the impedance ratio is the square of the turns ratio) but I use an L network tuner which can be very efficient and also allows for adjustment which the fixed turns ratio does not afford. Depending on how your antenna is depolyed, the actual impedance at the end can vary a lot so the fixed transformer may not always give you a good match. If small size and light weight are important the L network can be made small and portable but avoid those plastic 'polyvaracon' capacitors as they will be lossy in this high voltaghe application. A small air variable is the way to go IMHO.
|
|
|
Alan de G1FXB
Hi Victor,
You may be surprised just how good the WSPR mode can be, with no /
minimal effort..
I run a random length of wire (no more than 15feet)?? pinned to the
facia board approx 9 foot above ground level on a stable block.
No ATU, no counterpoise or secondary ground rod connection.
I don't claim to be heard on all continents at any one time,
I use WSPR as a propagation indicator, not as an automated WAC
certificate collection tool.....
I do reach the other side of the world when band conditions are
good,
and have beyond the norm spots on 10Mtrs (low VHF) so suggesting
sporadic E, etc, etc.Single BS170 as supplied by Hans in my kit, fed
with 5V in recognition of no ATU matching, through a 3dB attenuator
to restrict the worse case SWR seen by the PA to 2:1?? (Previously
unaware of existence of everlasting BS170's)
It's being running pretty much 24/7/365 since 2013, (It's a U3 so is
at a disadvantage to the later U3S design having a less efficient
"PA" configuration.
Never more than a day or two down time, most often caused by a
"brown out" on the power feed to the field.
power changes per band, I don't recall more than 100mW measured on
any band?? even at it's sweet spot at on the LF bands
With the U3S expect circa 250mW
Further crippled by the fact it band hops 160-10MTRs so doesn't
hammer every two minute cycle on what ever is the best choice band
at anyone time.
Check one of the WSPR reporting sites?
Personally think it's good value & have got my monies worth
In all probability you will do better...
regards Alan
On 04/06/2019 01:04, Viktors Miske
KC8CKZ wrote:
Well, my Ultimate 3s arrived today! (Along with some extras).??
Hopefully have it up and running by the 4th of July.
But stage 2 of the project comes to mind, that radiating gizmo
often referred to as an antenna.?? Personally I plan on building a
multi band Fan antenna (dipole).?? At the house I have a 40' tree,
but it would have to be at a 45 degree angle.?? I may set up in the
local park at times where I can easily go horizontal at 60' (small
park, but has 5 Banyan trees).
Just curious on what everyone else runs for their beacon.?? And
apologize if this topic is either off, or been covered.
Victor
KC8CKZ
|
|
|
Hi Alan,
I don't use WSPR at all. Once (or twice) upon a time I tried WSPR but failed completely. Toys like WSPR give new meaning to frequency stability for an amateur. "Good enough" is still good enough but that tied to requirements of different modes. I may try it again one of these days now that I have 'more stable' oscillators in a couple of radios. Let me write that on the white-board.
I do use FT8 as a propagation indicator without ever transmitting anything. The station call sign we are actually copying is clearly listed so the band is open to (from) there. The station (s)he is working is also listed so we can consider that path too, even if we cannot hear the other station (I often can).
How well would it work if you deployed an intentionally efficient antenna?
73,
Bill KU8H
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On 6/4/19 11:15 AM, Alan de G1FXB via Groups.Io wrote: Hi Victor,
You may be surprised just how good the WSPR mode can be, with no / minimal effort..
I run a random length of wire (no more than 15feet)?? pinned to the facia board approx 9 foot above ground level on a stable block.
No ATU, no counterpoise or secondary ground rod connection.
I don't claim to be heard on all continents at any one time,
I use WSPR as a propagation indicator, not as an automated WAC certificate collection tool.....
I do reach the other side of the world when band conditions are good,
and have beyond the norm spots on 10Mtrs (low VHF) so suggesting sporadic E, etc, etc.Single BS170 as supplied by Hans in my kit, fed with 5V in recognition of no ATU matching, through a 3dB attenuator to restrict the worse case SWR seen by the PA to 2:1?? (Previously unaware of existence of everlasting BS170's)
It's being running pretty much 24/7/365 since 2013, (It's a U3 so is at a disadvantage to the later U3S design having a less efficient "PA" configuration.
Never more than a day or two down time, most often caused by a "brown out" on the power feed to the field.
power changes per band, I don't recall more than 100mW measured on any band?? even at it's sweet spot at on the LF bands
With the U3S expect circa 250mW
Further crippled by the fact it band hops 160-10MTRs so doesn't hammer every two minute cycle on what ever is the best choice band at anyone time.
Check one of the WSPR reporting sites?
Personally think it's good value & have got my monies worth
In all probability you will do better...
regards Alan
On 04/06/2019 01:04, Viktors Miske KC8CKZ wrote:
Well, my Ultimate 3s arrived today! (Along with some extras).?? Hopefully have it up and running by the 4th of July.
But stage 2 of the project comes to mind, that radiating gizmo often referred to as an antenna.?? Personally I plan on building a multi band Fan antenna (dipole).?? At the house I have a 40' tree, but it would have to be at a 45 degree angle.?? I may set up in the local park at times where I can easily go horizontal at 60' (small park, but has 5 Banyan trees).
Just curious on what everyone else runs for their beacon.?? And apologize if this topic is either off, or been covered.
Victor
KC8CKZ
--
bark less - wag more
|
|
|
Alan de G1FXB
Hi Bill,
frequency accuracy requirements on the TX
side are pre-deltwith in the U3S kit.
Use good construction practice, common
sense,
case the kit, you don't want draughts or
heating of the XTAL, use a stable power supply and with the GPS
add on option and it's almost a no brainer.
GPS also removes the other variable, you
need to start your TX at a particular time +/- 1 Sec
Employ sane & sensible choices in the
menu options for cal & step settings,
they need to be different at first turn on
for optimal quick course tuning, once it's achieved most of the
required calibration trimming use finer correction for utmost freq
accuracy.
Also how long you leave between TX cycles
and band changes (if any)can influence the cal settings.
All of which have being long discussed on
this forum, Hans application notes on the main website, etc, etc.
The results are guaranteed as much as they
can be in a self built kit....
Yes, its perhaps more demanding on the RX
side! You need to accurately need to know where you are and stay
there.
A HRO is perhaps a poor choice, after all
WSPR employs a 200Hz wide passband, not KHz.
You can quantify your chances of success
before even downloading the WSPR EXE. Tune to one of the off air
HF Time & Frequency Standards.....
Failing that, tune to a BC station. Zero
beat it / use ARGO or SL applications. It costs you nothing.
Look on one of the WSPR reporting sites.
Choose any call sign as the sender station
and look at the frequency variation given by the reporters.......
Some employ reference locked RX stations.
some are plainly wrong?
They are the loosers in the bragging
rights, by not correctly setting their receiving window....
"Surprisingly" QRP-Labs provide cheap
modules you could assemble and use to make an accurate RX as they
are,
or build into a different design you favour
3rd party
inaccuracy is out of your control, don't sweat it.
Use any mode you favour,I suspect I may
differ? but I don't see WSPR as a
new toy, created 2008?
A popular solution perhaps was something
similar to http://www.knology.net/~gmarcus/WSPR/wspr_v4.pdf
Simple blocks, a Xtal LO, no oven & no
GPS. But careful construction & common sense such as dont put
the Xtal in the same box as the PA and it worked.
All pre the DDS & synth in a chip
solutions of today to generate the carrier.
Heck today you can use a RPi and
waggle a IO pin if you want to radiate WSPR signals without using
a transmitter circuit....
recently there was a declaration that WSPR
is no longer of value, everyone
has moved on to FT8 it's superior.
This is incorrect, like for like figures indicate WSPR will decode
further into the noise (SNR) you can also fit more TX stations in
an identical B/W
WSPR is created as
a no compromise one-way mode with efficient use to bandwidth,
not QSO mode by design. However new,It's not all about speed.
The U3S by it's
self (as a majority are built and will be used) is incapable of
two way communication
What you are seeing is easily explained.
There are more (T?)RX stations on on the latest & greatest
mode, not that it is technically superior in any way.
as to the question on how well with an
efficient antenna, What am I missing.
"If a tree falls
in a forest and no one is around to hear it,
does it make a
sound?"
Do you foresee a "problem"?
My low output WSPR beacon on a bit of wire
gets heard,
It can be argued it's further compromised.
My meagre signal
is still further flattened by the BIG guns running 500mW....
I'm one of those "awkward" people who all
sit on top of each other, middle of the window.
Why do I do that deliberately, because it
gives me easy(ier) numbers to flag the frequency differences
should someone receive me......
On your comment
that you may re-try wspr, now that you have a couple of radio's
possessing more stable oscillators.
How much did they
cost Verses the costs for a proven solution of a QRP-Labs U3S
transmitter & ProgRock or VFO Kit / Receiver kit and a GPS
kit.
In your favour the
new radio's probably do modes & freq capabilities different
to the U3S etc.
But you didn't
have to upgrade to new radios in order to meet the
requirements for WSPR? / the "original" radios could be on
another band or mode you originally purchased them for?
I don't need to
convince you, or anyone else. There is no one size fit's all.
I feel my U3 does
me.
regards Alan
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On 04/06/2019 16:31, Bill Cromwell
wrote:
Hi Alan,
I don't use WSPR at all. Once (or twice) upon a time I tried WSPR
but failed completely. Toys like WSPR give new meaning to
frequency stability for an amateur. "Good enough" is still good
enough but that tied to requirements of different modes. I may try
it again one of these days now that I have 'more stable'
oscillators in a couple of radios. Let me write that on the
white-board.
I do use FT8 as a propagation indicator without ever transmitting
anything. The station call sign we are actually copying is clearly
listed so the band is open to (from) there. The station (s)he is
working is also listed so we can consider that path too, even if
we cannot hear the other station (I often can).
How well would it work if you deployed an intentionally efficient
antenna?
73,
Bill?? KU8H
On 6/4/19 11:15 AM, Alan de G1FXB via Groups.Io wrote:
Hi Victor,
You may be surprised just how good the WSPR mode can be, with no
/ minimal effort..
I run a random length of wire (no more than 15feet)?? pinned to
the facia board approx 9 foot above ground level on a stable
block.
No ATU, no counterpoise or secondary ground rod connection.
I don't claim to be heard on all continents at any one time,
I use WSPR as a propagation indicator, not as an automated WAC
certificate collection tool.....
I do reach the other side of the world when band conditions are
good,
and have beyond the norm spots on 10Mtrs (low VHF) so suggesting
sporadic E, etc, etc.Single BS170 as supplied by Hans in my kit,
fed with 5V in recognition of no ATU matching, through a 3dB
attenuator to restrict the worse case SWR seen by the PA to
2:1?? (Previously unaware of existence of everlasting BS170's)
It's being running pretty much 24/7/365 since 2013, (It's a U3
so is at a disadvantage to the later U3S design having a less
efficient "PA" configuration.
Never more than a day or two down time, most often caused by a
"brown out" on the power feed to the field.
power changes per band, I don't recall more than 100mW measured
on any band?? even at it's sweet spot at on the LF bands
With the U3S expect circa 250mW
Further crippled by the fact it band hops 160-10MTRs so doesn't
hammer every two minute cycle on what ever is the best choice
band at anyone time.
Check one of the WSPR reporting sites?
Personally think it's good value & have got my monies worth
In all probability you will do better...
regards Alan
On 04/06/2019 01:04, Viktors Miske KC8CKZ wrote:
Well, my Ultimate 3s arrived today!
(Along with some extras).?? Hopefully have it up and running
by the 4th of July.
But stage 2 of the project comes to mind, that radiating gizmo
often referred to as an antenna.?? Personally I plan on
building a multi band Fan antenna (dipole).?? At the house I
have a 40' tree, but it would have to be at a 45 degree
angle.?? I may set up in the local park at times where I can
easily go horizontal at 60' (small park, but has 5 Banyan
trees).
Just curious on what everyone else runs for their beacon.??
And apologize if this topic is either off, or been covered.
Victor
KC8CKZ
|
|
|
Alan, I will always bow to someone superior knowledge but the
WSPR site says that the decode b/w is 2500Hz, not 200Hz. As long
as you are in that 2500Hz b/w, you will see some signals. You may
miss some if you are not centred on that 2500Hz as some stations
will position their transmissions at either the top or bottom of
the range. I use a h/b tx/rx on WSPR which is off frequency by
about 200Hz but it still works.
I agree about the start time of transmissions being important but
it still works with an error of a couple of seconds. Must be on an
even numbered minute.
I get the impression that some new users don't fully understand
what WSPR is intended for.
Quote from website
The program can decode signals with S/N as low as -28 dB in a
2500 Hz bandwidth.
Geoff
P.S. thanks for updating the new 80m frequency.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On 04/06/2019 19:43, Alan de G1FXB via
Groups.Io wrote:
Hi Bill,
frequency accuracy requirements on the TX
side are pre-deltwith in the U3S kit.
Use good construction practice, common
sense,
case the kit, you don't want draughts or
heating of the XTAL, use a stable power supply and with the GPS
add on option and it's almost a no brainer.
GPS also removes the other variable, you
need to start your TX at a particular time +/- 1 Sec
Employ sane & sensible choices in the
menu options for cal & step settings,
they need to be different at first turn
on for optimal quick course tuning, once it's achieved most of
the required calibration trimming use finer correction for
utmost freq accuracy.
Also how long you leave between TX cycles
and band changes (if any)can influence the cal settings.
All of which have being long discussed on
this forum, Hans application notes on the main website, etc,
etc.
The results are guaranteed as much as
they can be in a self built kit....
Yes, its perhaps more demanding on the RX
side! You need to accurately need to know where you are and stay
there.
A HRO is perhaps a poor choice, after all
WSPR employs a 200Hz wide passband, not KHz.
You can quantify your chances of success
before even downloading the WSPR EXE. Tune to one of the off air
HF Time & Frequency Standards.....
Failing that, tune to a BC station. Zero
beat it / use ARGO or SL applications. It costs you nothing.
Look on one of the WSPR reporting sites.
Choose any call sign as the sender
station and look at the frequency variation given by the
reporters.......
Some employ reference locked RX stations.
some are plainly wrong?
They are the loosers in the bragging
rights, by not correctly setting their receiving window....
"Surprisingly" QRP-Labs provide cheap
modules you could assemble and use to make an accurate RX as
they are,
or build into a different design you
favour
3rd party
inaccuracy is out of your control, don't sweat it.
Use any mode you favour,I suspect I may
differ? but I don't see WSPR as
a new toy, created 2008?
A popular solution perhaps was something
similar to http://www.knology.net/~gmarcus/WSPR/wspr_v4.pdf
Simple blocks, a Xtal LO, no oven &
no GPS. But careful construction & common sense such as dont
put the Xtal in the same box as the PA and it worked.
All pre the DDS & synth in a chip
solutions of today to generate the carrier.
Heck today you can use a RPi and
waggle a IO pin if you want to radiate WSPR signals without
using a transmitter circuit....
recently there was a declaration that
WSPR is no longer of value, everyone
has moved on to FT8 it's superior.
This is incorrect, like for like figures indicate WSPR will
decode further into the noise (SNR) you can also fit more TX
stations in an identical B/W
WSPR is created
as a no compromise one-way mode with efficient use to
bandwidth, not QSO mode by design. However new,It's not
all about speed.
The U3S by it's
self (as a majority are built and will be used) is incapable
of two way communication
What you are seeing is easily explained.
There are more (T?)RX stations on on the latest & greatest
mode, not that it is technically superior in any way.
as to the question on how well with an
efficient antenna, What am I missing.
"If a tree falls
in a forest and no one is around to hear it,
does it make a
sound?"
Do you foresee a "problem"?
My low output WSPR beacon on a bit of
wire gets heard,
It can be argued it's further
compromised.
My meagre signal
is still further flattened by the BIG guns running 500mW....
I'm one of those "awkward" people who
all sit on top of each other, middle of the window.
Why do I do that deliberately, because it
gives me easy(ier) numbers to flag the frequency differences
should someone receive me......
On your comment
that you may re-try wspr, now that you have a couple of
radio's possessing more stable oscillators.
How much did
they cost Verses the costs for a proven solution of a QRP-Labs
U3S transmitter & ProgRock or VFO Kit / Receiver kit and a
GPS kit.
In your favour
the new radio's probably do modes & freq capabilities
different to the U3S etc.
But you
didn't have to upgrade to new radios in order to meet the
requirements for WSPR? / the "original" radios could be
on another band or mode you originally purchased them for?
I don't need to
convince you, or anyone else. There is no one size fit's all.
I feel my U3
does me.
regards Alan
On 04/06/2019 16:31, Bill Cromwell
wrote:
Hi
Alan,
I don't use WSPR at all. Once (or twice) upon a time I tried
WSPR but failed completely. Toys like WSPR give new meaning to
frequency stability for an amateur. "Good enough" is still good
enough but that tied to requirements of different modes. I may
try it again one of these days now that I have 'more stable'
oscillators in a couple of radios. Let me write that on the
white-board.
I do use FT8 as a propagation indicator without ever
transmitting anything. The station call sign we are actually
copying is clearly listed so the band is open to (from) there.
The station (s)he is working is also listed so we can consider
that path too, even if we cannot hear the other station (I often
can).
How well would it work if you deployed an intentionally
efficient antenna?
73,
Bill?? KU8H
On 6/4/19 11:15 AM, Alan de G1FXB via Groups.Io wrote:
Hi Victor,
You may be surprised just how good the WSPR mode can be, with
no / minimal effort..
I run a random length of wire (no more than 15feet)?? pinned
to the facia board approx 9 foot above ground level on a
stable block.
No ATU, no counterpoise or secondary ground rod connection.
I don't claim to be heard on all continents at any one time,
I use WSPR as a propagation indicator, not as an automated WAC
certificate collection tool.....
I do reach the other side of the world when band conditions
are good,
and have beyond the norm spots on 10Mtrs (low VHF) so
suggesting sporadic E, etc, etc.Single BS170 as supplied by
Hans in my kit, fed with 5V in recognition of no ATU matching,
through a 3dB attenuator to restrict the worse case SWR seen
by the PA to 2:1?? (Previously unaware of existence of
everlasting BS170's)
It's being running pretty much 24/7/365 since 2013, (It's a U3
so is at a disadvantage to the later U3S design having a less
efficient "PA" configuration.
Never more than a day or two down time, most often caused by a
"brown out" on the power feed to the field.
power changes per band, I don't recall more than 100mW
measured on any band?? even at it's sweet spot at on the LF
bands
With the U3S expect circa 250mW
Further crippled by the fact it band hops 160-10MTRs so
doesn't hammer every two minute cycle on what ever is the best
choice band at anyone time.
Check one of the WSPR reporting sites?
Personally think it's good value & have got my monies
worth
In all probability you will do better...
regards Alan
On 04/06/2019 01:04, Viktors Miske KC8CKZ wrote:
Well, my Ultimate 3s arrived today!
(Along with some extras).?? Hopefully have it up and running
by the 4th of July.
But stage 2 of the project comes to mind, that radiating
gizmo often referred to as an antenna.?? Personally I plan
on building a multi band Fan antenna (dipole).?? At the
house I have a 40' tree, but it would have to be at a 45
degree angle.?? I may set up in the local park at times
where I can easily go horizontal at 60' (small park, but has
5 Banyan trees).
Just curious on what everyone else runs for their beacon.??
And apologize if this topic is either off, or been covered.
Victor
KC8CKZ
|
|
|
Quote from website
/The program can decode signals with S/N as low as -28 dB in a 2500 Hz bandwidth. / Which states the standard way the SNR value is calculated. SSB needs at least +6db in a 2500 Hz bandwidth. The actual signals are 6Hz wide and transmitted within a 200Hz range. 73 Alan G4ZFQ
|
|
|
Alan de G1FXB
Hi Geoff,
No claim for originality....
I merely referenced Hans section 6.4 Page
22 of the receiver build manual.
Just in case Hans was wrong, also bottom of
page 4 / 5??
http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/WSPR_3.0_User.pdf
"The decoder looks for all detectable WSPR
signals in a 200 Hz
passband and displays its results in a waterfall spectrogram"
goes on to say
"Each decoded WSPR signal produces text
showing the UTC, measured signal-to-noise ratio in dB (in a 2500
Hz reference bandwidth)"
Thay are two subtle and different things.
We agree on timing, nearer to the ideal,
the better chance of decode / successful error correction.
regards Alan
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On 04/06/2019 20:28, geoff M0ORE via
Groups.Io wrote:
Alan, I will always bow to someone superior knowledge but the
WSPR site says that the decode b/w is 2500Hz, not 200Hz. As long
as you are in that 2500Hz b/w, you will see some signals. You
may miss some if you are not centred on that 2500Hz as some
stations will position their transmissions at either the top or
bottom of the range. I use a h/b tx/rx on WSPR which is off
frequency by about 200Hz but it still works.
I agree about the start time of transmissions being important
but it still works with an error of a couple of seconds. Must be
on an even numbered minute.
I get the impression that some new users don't fully understand
what WSPR is intended for.
Quote from website??
The program can decode signals with S/N as low as -28 dB in
a 2500 Hz bandwidth.??
Geoff
P.S. thanks for updating the new 80m frequency.
On 04/06/2019 19:43, Alan de G1FXB
via Groups.Io wrote:
Hi Bill,
frequency accuracy requirements on the
TX side are pre-deltwith in the U3S kit.
Use good construction practice, common
sense,
case the kit, you don't want draughts
or heating of the XTAL, use a stable power supply and with the
GPS add on option and it's almost a no brainer.
GPS also removes the other variable,
you need to start your TX at a particular time +/- 1 Sec
Employ sane & sensible choices in
the menu options for cal & step settings,
they need to be different at first turn
on for optimal quick course tuning, once it's achieved most of
the required calibration trimming use finer correction for
utmost freq accuracy.
Also how long you leave between TX
cycles and band changes (if any)can influence the cal
settings.
All of which have being long discussed
on this forum, Hans application notes on the main website,
etc, etc.
The results are guaranteed as much as
they can be in a self built kit....
Yes, its perhaps more demanding on the
RX side! You need to accurately need to know where you are and
stay there.
A HRO is perhaps a poor choice, after
all WSPR employs a 200Hz wide passband, not KHz.
You can quantify your chances of
success before even downloading the WSPR EXE. Tune to one of
the off air HF Time & Frequency Standards.....
Failing that, tune to a BC station.
Zero beat it / use ARGO or SL applications. It costs you
nothing.
Look on one of the WSPR reporting
sites.
Choose any call sign as the sender
station and look at the frequency variation given by the
reporters.......
Some employ reference locked RX
stations. some are plainly wrong?
They are the loosers in the bragging
rights, by not correctly setting their receiving window....
"Surprisingly" QRP-Labs provide cheap
modules you could assemble and use to make an accurate RX as
they are,
or build into a different design you
favour
3rd party
inaccuracy is out of your control, don't sweat it.
Use any mode you favour,I suspect I may
differ? but I don't see WSPR
as a new toy, created 2008?
A popular solution perhaps was
something similar to http://www.knology.net/~gmarcus/WSPR/wspr_v4.pdf
Simple blocks, a Xtal LO, no oven &
no GPS. But careful construction & common sense such as
dont put the Xtal in the same box as the PA and it worked.
All pre the DDS & synth in a chip
solutions of today to generate the carrier.
Heck today you can use a RPi and
waggle a IO pin if you want to radiate WSPR signals without
using a transmitter circuit....
recently there was a declaration that
WSPR is no longer of value, everyone
has moved on to FT8 it's superior.
This is incorrect, like for like figures indicate WSPR will
decode further into the noise (SNR) you can also fit more TX
stations in an identical B/W
WSPR is
created as a no compromise one-way mode with efficient use
to bandwidth, not QSO mode by design. However new,It's
not all about speed.
The U3S by
it's self (as a majority are built and will be used) is
incapable of two way communication
What you are seeing is easily
explained. There are more (T?)RX stations on on the latest
& greatest mode, not that it is technically superior in
any way.
as to the question on how well with an
efficient antenna, What am I missing.
"If a tree
falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it,
does it make
a sound?"
Do you foresee a "problem"?
My low output WSPR beacon on a bit of
wire gets heard,
It can be argued it's further
compromised.
My meagre
signal is still further flattened by the BIG guns running
500mW....
I'm one of those "awkward" people who
all sit on top of each other, middle of the window.
Why do I do that deliberately, because
it gives me easy(ier) numbers to flag the frequency
differences
should someone receive me......
On your
comment that you may re-try wspr, now that you have a couple
of radio's possessing more stable oscillators.
How much did
they cost Verses the costs for a proven solution of a
QRP-Labs U3S transmitter & ProgRock or VFO Kit /
Receiver kit and a GPS kit.
In your favour
the new radio's probably do modes & freq capabilities
different to the U3S etc.
But you
didn't have to upgrade to new radios in order to meet the
requirements for WSPR? / the "original" radios could
be on another band or mode you originally purchased them
for?
I don't need
to convince you, or anyone else. There is no one size fit's
all.
I feel my U3
does me.
regards Alan
On 04/06/2019 16:31, Bill Cromwell
wrote:
Hi
Alan,
I don't use WSPR at all. Once (or twice) upon a time I tried
WSPR but failed completely. Toys like WSPR give new meaning to
frequency stability for an amateur. "Good enough" is still
good enough but that tied to requirements of different modes.
I may try it again one of these days now that I have 'more
stable' oscillators in a couple of radios. Let me write that
on the white-board.
I do use FT8 as a propagation indicator without ever
transmitting anything. The station call sign we are actually
copying is clearly listed so the band is open to (from) there.
The station (s)he is working is also listed so we can consider
that path too, even if we cannot hear the other station (I
often can).
How well would it work if you deployed an intentionally
efficient antenna?
73,
Bill?? KU8H
On 6/4/19 11:15 AM, Alan de G1FXB via Groups.Io wrote:
Hi Victor,
You may be surprised just how good the WSPR mode can be,
with no / minimal effort..
I run a random length of wire (no more than 15feet)?? pinned
to the facia board approx 9 foot above ground level on a
stable block.
No ATU, no counterpoise or secondary ground rod connection.
I don't claim to be heard on all continents at any one time,
I use WSPR as a propagation indicator, not as an automated
WAC certificate collection tool.....
I do reach the other side of the world when band conditions
are good,
and have beyond the norm spots on 10Mtrs (low VHF) so
suggesting sporadic E, etc, etc.Single BS170 as supplied by
Hans in my kit, fed with 5V in recognition of no ATU
matching, through a 3dB attenuator to restrict the worse
case SWR seen by the PA to 2:1?? (Previously unaware of
existence of everlasting BS170's)
It's being running pretty much 24/7/365 since 2013, (It's a
U3 so is at a disadvantage to the later U3S design having a
less efficient "PA" configuration.
Never more than a day or two down time, most often caused by
a "brown out" on the power feed to the field.
power changes per band, I don't recall more than 100mW
measured on any band?? even at it's sweet spot at on the LF
bands
With the U3S expect circa 250mW
Further crippled by the fact it band hops 160-10MTRs so
doesn't hammer every two minute cycle on what ever is the
best choice band at anyone time.
Check one of the WSPR reporting sites?
Personally think it's good value & have got my monies
worth
In all probability you will do better...
regards Alan
On 04/06/2019 01:04, Viktors Miske KC8CKZ wrote:
Well, my Ultimate 3s arrived today!
(Along with some extras).?? Hopefully have it up and
running by the 4th of July.
But stage 2 of the project comes to mind, that radiating
gizmo often referred to as an antenna.?? Personally I plan
on building a multi band Fan antenna (dipole).?? At the
house I have a 40' tree, but it would have to be at a 45
degree angle.?? I may set up in the local park at times
where I can easily go horizontal at 60' (small park, but
has 5 Banyan trees).
Just curious on what everyone else runs for their
beacon.?? And apologize if this topic is either off, or
been covered.
Victor
KC8CKZ
|
|
|
ajparent1/KB1GMX <kb1gmx@...>
I use decent antennas for everything as if its poor and nothing happens
where is the problem?
So End fed half wave monoband so I know its pattern (like a centerfed dipole).
A long while back I experimented with WSPR on 40m and at about 15mW
of power it produced a number of hits across the pond. Around that time
(same day about a few hours earlier) I also worked a VK foundation station
mobile QRP SSB on 40 so morning greyline propagation had to be really
good with an EIRP of maybe 400mW on my end and 10W into a dipole up
high at his end. I found if the drift across a 10 minute span was a few HZ
it was good enough so long as it hit the middle of the other guys passband.
I'm rarely surprised how far a weak signal goes, but often shocked how
far a strong 100W signal doesn't go.
Allison
|
|
|
Hi Alan,
It looks like you are a little on the defensive here. My comments are not a slur directed at either you or WSPR. I'm sorry if something I said looks that way to you.
I tried WSPR several times actually long ago. Before we got our 630 meter ham allocation there were experimental stations and they were doing the propagation studies with - among other things - WSPR. I tried a number of times to get it to work at my station. I was never part of the experimental license and did not transmit. I did offer some reception reports.
The problem was NOT my five year old (at the time) radio. mine were much older. I have and still play with some very old gear - the newest of that stuff is from the 70s and uses at least one *free running*, L-C oscillator - or more. Some of my legacy gear dates to WW2 and even back to the 1930s. The drift was just too much even though you wouldn't notice as a CW or SSB op. RTTY was good too. And AMTOR in it's day. I learned to reduce the drift but not enough. If I was taking a shot at anything in my previous post it was my own radio gear.
Since that time (I abandoned WSPR a long time ago) I have acquired radios that have a hope of staying close enough on frequency to give it another try. Without the GPS reference it might fail but I am pretty sure the receiver will not drift off far enough. I will see about that *soon*.
I have no interest at in the beacon transmitter kit. I learned about the QCX about the time I acquired my PFR-3 and considered buying one for 80 and one for 17 meters. Before I bought in I learned about the QSX to be available - hopefully soon. I also acquired a microBitX and I have been using it. It has not slowed my ineterest in the QSX.
My own thought about the compromise antenna was related to how many more signa;s you might log with WSPR with better antennas. That is *my* curiosity. Not a requirement imposed on you.
If you could see my mail archive you would see that none of the WSPR messages since the first day I tried it have been deleted. I am very interested in what other hams are doing and I do sometimes ask questions. Not as challenges. Just out of my own interest.
73,
Bill KU8H
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On 6/4/19 2:43 PM, Alan de G1FXB via Groups.Io wrote: Hi Bill,
frequency accuracy requirements on the TX side are pre-deltwith in the U3S kit.
Use good construction practice, common sense,
case the kit, you don't want draughts or heating of the XTAL, use a stable power supply and with the GPS add on option and it's almost a no brainer.
GPS also removes the other variable, you need to start your TX at a particular time +/- 1 Sec
Employ sane & sensible choices in the menu options for cal & step settings,
they need to be different at first turn on for optimal quick course tuning, once it's achieved most of the required calibration trimming use finer correction for utmost freq accuracy.
Also how long you leave between TX cycles and band changes (if any)can influence the cal settings.
All of which have being long discussed on this forum, Hans application notes on the main website, etc, etc.
The results are guaranteed as much as they can be in a self built kit....
Yes, its perhaps more demanding on the RX side! You need to accurately need to know where you are and stay there.
A HRO is perhaps a poor choice, after all WSPR employs a 200Hz wide passband, not KHz.
You can quantify your chances of success before even downloading the WSPR EXE. Tune to one of the off air HF Time & Frequency Standards.....
Failing that, tune to a BC station. Zero beat it / use ARGO or SL applications. It costs you nothing.
Look on one of the WSPR reporting sites.
Choose any call sign as the sender station and look at the frequency variation given by the reporters.......
Some employ reference locked RX stations. some are plainly wrong?
They are the loosers in the bragging rights, by not correctly setting their receiving window....
"Surprisingly" QRP-Labs provide cheap modules you could assemble and use to make an accurate RX as they are,
or build into a different design you favour
3rd party inaccuracy is out of your control, don't sweat it.
Use any mode you favour,I suspect I may differ?but I don't see WSPR as a new toy, created 2008?
A popular solution perhaps was something similar to http://www.knology.net/~gmarcus/WSPR/wspr_v4.pdf
Simple blocks, a Xtal LO, no oven & no GPS. But careful construction & common sense such as dont put the Xtal in the same box as the PA and it worked.
All pre the DDS & synth in a chip solutions of today to generate the carrier.
Heck today you can use a RPi and waggle a IO pin if you want to radiate WSPR signals without using a transmitter circuit....
recently there was a declaration that WSPR is no longer of value, everyone has moved on to FT8 it's superior.
This is incorrect, like for like figures indicate WSPR will decode further into the noise (SNR) you can also fit more TX stations in an identical B/W
WSPR is created as a no compromise one-way mode with efficient use to bandwidth, not QSO mode by design. However new,It's not all about speed.
The U3S by it's self (as a majority are built and will be used) is incapable of two way communication
What you are seeing is easily explained. There are more (T?)RX stations on on the latest & greatest mode, not that it is technically superior in any way.
as to the question on how well with an efficient antenna, What am I missing.
"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it,
does it make a sound?"
Do you foresee a "problem"?
My low output WSPR beacon on a bit of wire gets heard,
It can be argued it's further compromised.
My meagre signal is still further flattened by the BIG guns running 500mW....
I'm one of those "awkward" people who all sit on top of each other, middle of the window.
Why do I do that deliberately, because it gives me easy(ier) numbers to flag the frequency differences
should someone receive me......
On your comment that you may re-try wspr, now that you have a couple of radio's possessing more stable oscillators.
How much did they cost Verses the costs for a proven solution of a QRP-Labs U3S transmitter & ProgRock or VFO Kit / Receiver kit and a GPS kit.
In your favour the new radio's probably do modes & freq capabilities different to the U3S etc.
But *you didn't have to upgrade to new radios in order to meet the requirements for WSPR?* / the "original" radios could be on another band or mode you originally purchased them for?
I don't need to convince you, or anyone else. There is no one size fit's all.
I feel my U3 does me.
regards Alan
On 04/06/2019 16:31, Bill Cromwell wrote:
Hi Alan,
I don't use WSPR at all. Once (or twice) upon a time I tried WSPR but failed completely. Toys like WSPR give new meaning to frequency stability for an amateur. "Good enough" is still good enough but that tied to requirements of different modes. I may try it again one of these days now that I have 'more stable' oscillators in a couple of radios. Let me write that on the white-board.
I do use FT8 as a propagation indicator without ever transmitting anything. The station call sign we are actually copying is clearly listed so the band is open to (from) there. The station (s)he is working is also listed so we can consider that path too, even if we cannot hear the other station (I often can).
How well would it work if you deployed an intentionally efficient antenna?
73,
Bill?? KU8H
On 6/4/19 11:15 AM, Alan de G1FXB via Groups.Io wrote:
Hi Victor,
You may be surprised just how good the WSPR mode can be, with no / minimal effort..
I run a random length of wire (no more than 15feet)?? pinned to the facia board approx 9 foot above ground level on a stable block.
No ATU, no counterpoise or secondary ground rod connection.
I don't claim to be heard on all continents at any one time,
I use WSPR as a propagation indicator, not as an automated WAC certificate collection tool.....
I do reach the other side of the world when band conditions are good,
and have beyond the norm spots on 10Mtrs (low VHF) so suggesting sporadic E, etc, etc.Single BS170 as supplied by Hans in my kit, fed with 5V in recognition of no ATU matching, through a 3dB attenuator to restrict the worse case SWR seen by the PA to 2:1?? (Previously unaware of existence of everlasting BS170's)
It's being running pretty much 24/7/365 since 2013, (It's a U3 so is at a disadvantage to the later U3S design having a less efficient "PA" configuration.
Never more than a day or two down time, most often caused by a "brown out" on the power feed to the field.
power changes per band, I don't recall more than 100mW measured on any band?? even at it's sweet spot at on the LF bands
With the U3S expect circa 250mW
Further crippled by the fact it band hops 160-10MTRs so doesn't hammer every two minute cycle on what ever is the best choice band at anyone time.
Check one of the WSPR reporting sites?
Personally think it's good value & have got my monies worth
In all probability you will do better...
regards Alan
On 04/06/2019 01:04, Viktors Miske KC8CKZ wrote:
Well, my Ultimate 3s arrived today! (Along with some extras).?? Hopefully have it up and running by the 4th of July.
But stage 2 of the project comes to mind, that radiating gizmo often referred to as an antenna.?? Personally I plan on building a multi band Fan antenna (dipole).?? At the house I have a 40' tree, but it would have to be at a 45 degree angle.?? I may set up in the local park at times where I can easily go horizontal at 60' (small park, but has 5 Banyan trees).
Just curious on what everyone else runs for their beacon.?? And apologize if this topic is either off, or been covered.
Victor
KC8CKZ
--
bark less - wag more
|
|
|
John Canfield <bucket@...>
My U3S is putting about 250 mw into a MyAntenna end fed dipole. I get lots of spots every 10 minutes on 30m. My drift is almost always zero, with an occasional one or two Hz thrown in.
--
John, WB5THT
|
|
|
TrueBlue
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 05:04 PM, Viktors Miske KC8CKZ wrote:
But stage 2 of the project comes to mind, that radiating gizmo often referred to as an antenna.
Jeeze... After a couple of years of struggle, frustration with getting sense about QRPp antenna design from so many self-ordained "experts" has caused me to walk away from ham radio as a bad job. :( And it's all about the antenna. There is NO aspect of antenna design or application -- absolutely none -- that will not be persuasively contradicted by some other "expert." This is no exaggeration. If possible it's an understatement. For a scientific subject presumably based in Physics, with absolute rights and wrongs, this realization was shocking and infinitely depressing. Even the information from the ARRL is frequently contradictory. I'm at an age where climbing trees and falling off the roof are not attractive pastimes. I had hoped to do serious research, get a good antenna for my situation up properly on the first try, and then move on to the next step. That never happened. It was like hitting a brick wall. It was like a bad dream. It was like Kafka. Instead of a subject demonstrating intellectual rigor, you get a hysterical uproar of superstition, augury and hearsay (all helpfully driven by deep emotional investment) passing as fact, which it is not. All DKE, all the time. "As Dunning has suggested, the very trouble with ignorance is that it can feel just like expertise."Here, as just one random example of hundreds: Is the optimum QRPp antenna installation different from the optimum general ham antenna installation for the same frequency? Yes or no. I've seen the arguments, some of which even sound persuasive. Who's right? [shrug] WHO KNOWS? So, the ~40' run of wire I stapled up down my hallway as a "temporary test" when I first powered up my U3S two years ago is still there The U3S still runs 24/7 and I check the Internet occasionally to see if anything interesting has fallen into my virtual lobster pot. Sometimes it has, usually not. That's where my experiment began and ended. Now, everyone will be furious with me for pointing all this out. Just watch. But they know it's true.
|
|
|
Victor
Asking hams to suggest then debate antennas is a real hornets nest. My barefoot U3S reaches half way around the world on 30 and 40 meters using a vertical.
Likely you may not have an antenna that matches 6 or more bands without human intervention. I use my U3S on a couple bands at a time where antenCurt
na is suitably matched. Use whatever you have in mind for normal operating.
Be careful with term beacon. At least in the US, maybe other places also, it is not permitted by regulations to operate wspr unattended, even at 200 mW. I suggest not transmitting 24/7 but occasionally with it.
Curt
|
|
|
Alan de G1FXB
Hi Bill,
Not defensive, I'm happy to answer
questions posed as best I can. I'm not a font of all knowledge
& don't pretend to be.
Everyone is entitled to their own point of
view, I am keen to highlight in my view misinformation and
misrepresentation*
s o one can form their own opinion.
There is not always a black / white
question or Pros & Cons of various modes to answer. This and
the FT8 thread illustrates that well.
I try to provide the background to what
makes my point of view, so if you wish you may "peer :-D" review.
*The
bottom line is trust no-one, try it yourself.
If your findings agree with the reference
that's great, to be critical perhaps double check the test was a
valid indicator in the first place.
If first pass findings don't agree, then
question both your own findings & reference data equally....
Just because it was on the internet doesn't
make it accurate, however much you would hope it would be.
If you are still
with me, comments & background below....
On 04/06/2019 22:33, Bill Cromwell
wrote:
Hi Alan,
It looks like you are a little on the defensive here. My comments
are not a slur directed at either you or WSPR. I'm sorry if
something I said looks that way to you.
I tried WSPR several times actually long ago. Before we got our
630 meter ham allocation there were experimental stations and they
were doing the propagation studies with - among other things -
WSPR. I tried a number of times to get it to work at my station. I
was never part of the experimental license and did not transmit. I
did offer some reception reports.
The problem was NOT my five year old (at the time) radio. mine
were much older. I have and still play with some very old gear -
the newest of that stuff is from the 70s and uses at least one
*free running*, L-C oscillator - or more. Some of my legacy gear
dates to WW2 and even back to the 1930s. The drift was just too
much even though you wouldn't notice as a CW or SSB op. RTTY was
good too. And AMTOR in it's day. I learned to reduce the drift but
not enough. If I was taking a shot at anything in my previous post
it was my own radio gear.
(None confrontationally)
2 minutes of continuous 100% duty cycle key down is a tough ask
even for current gear if not well designed for that requirement
few but the most recent are.
(There was a comment here about "name the modern rig model from
the drift profile".....)
There are many topics on wsprNET.org & others. New / old,
cheap or expensive there are good & bad in all.
If you want a challenge try the 15 minute
keydown of WSPR15
or or what at first sight an easy mode.
One of the QRSS variants, (How hard can it be, it's only pictorial
CW after all ?)
If you REALY want a challenge try taming drift
& stability for TRX WSPR at 144MHz and above.
Antennas are proportionally so much more
convenient & small, why are there so few users?
Since
that time (I abandoned WSPR a long time ago) I have acquired
radios that have a hope of staying close enough on frequency to
give it another try. Without the GPS reference it might fail but I
am pretty sure the receiver will not drift off far enough. I will
see about that *soon*.
I have no interest at in the beacon transmitter kit. I learned
about the QCX about the time I acquired my PFR-3 and considered
buying one for 80 and one for 17 meters. Before I bought in I
learned about the QSX to be available - hopefully soon. I also
acquired a microBitX and I have been using it. It has not slowed
my ineterest in the QSX.
Gauging propagation using whatever mode can be
fascinating,i it's a pastime in it's own right,
12+ hours with no spots above for instance
60Mtrs (remember it's 100mW and?? a 15ft bit of wire) shows just
how low the apparent MUF in that position can be.?? Then later I am
spotted on 10Mtrs in Spain with the same bit of wire.
(My real life findings, since Xmas)
My own thought about the compromise antenna was related to how
many more signa;s you might log with WSPR with better antennas.
That is *my* curiosity. Not a requirement imposed on you.
It's an example dangerously(!) close to a
thread on another group you may have already joined...
even with identical antennas
It's VERY unlikely your AGL is the same as
mine.
It's VERY unlikely your take off is the same
as mine.
It's VERY unlikely your ground conductivity is
the same as mine.
Repeat infinitely...
*GOTO Line 6
It's an question only you can answer.
Even when you find that answer that has
plagued the life every SWL or ham ever licensed, if you move house
then you start again from scratch.
Perhaps the best you can expect is previous
reviews provide a short list or headstart ?
If you could see my mail archive you would see that none of the
WSPR messages since the first day I tried it have been deleted. I
am very interested in what other hams are doing and I do sometimes
ask questions. Not as challenges. Just out of my own interest.
73,
Bill?? KU8H
On 6/4/19 2:43 PM, Alan de G1FXB via Groups.Io wrote:
Hi Bill,
frequency accuracy requirements on the TX side are pre-deltwith
in the U3S kit.
Use good construction practice, common sense,
case the kit, you don't want draughts or heating of the XTAL,
use a stable power supply and with the GPS add on option and
it's almost a no brainer.
GPS also removes the other variable, you need to start your TX
at a particular time +/- 1 Sec
Employ sane & sensible choices in the menu options for cal
& step settings,
they need to be different at first turn on for optimal quick
course tuning, once it's achieved most of the required
calibration trimming use finer correction for utmost freq
accuracy.
Also how long you leave between TX cycles and band changes (if
any)can influence the cal settings.
All of which have being long discussed on this forum, Hans
application notes on the main website, etc, etc.
The results are guaranteed as much as they can be in a self
built kit....
Yes, its perhaps more demanding on the RX side! You need to
accurately need to know where you are and stay there.
A HRO is perhaps a poor choice, after all WSPR employs a 200Hz
wide passband, not KHz.
You can quantify your chances of success before even downloading
the WSPR EXE. Tune to one of the off air HF Time & Frequency
Standards.....
Failing that, tune to a BC station. Zero beat it / use ARGO or
SL applications. It costs you nothing.
Look on one of the WSPR reporting sites.
Choose any call sign as the sender station and look at the
frequency variation given by the reporters.......
Some employ reference locked RX stations. some are plainly
wrong?
They are the loosers in the bragging rights, by not correctly
setting their receiving window....
"Surprisingly" QRP-Labs provide cheap modules you could assemble
and use to make an accurate RX as they are,
or build into a different design you favour
3rd party inaccuracy is out of your control, don't sweat it.
Use any mode you favour,I suspect I may differ?but I don't see
WSPR as a new toy, created 2008?
A popular solution perhaps was something similar to
http://www.knology.net/~gmarcus/WSPR/wspr_v4.pdf
Simple blocks, a Xtal LO, no oven & no GPS. But careful
construction & common sense such as dont put the Xtal in the
same box as the PA and it worked.
All pre the DDS & synth in a chip solutions of today to
generate the carrier.
Heck today you can use a RPi and waggle a IO pin if you want to
radiate WSPR signals without using a transmitter circuit....
recently there was a declaration that WSPR is no longer of
value, everyone has moved on to FT8 it's superior.
This is incorrect, like for like figures indicate WSPR will
decode further into the noise (SNR) you can also fit more TX
stations in an identical B/W
WSPR is created as a no compromise one-way mode with efficient
use to bandwidth, not QSO mode by design. However new,It's not
all about speed.
The U3S by it's self (as a majority are built and will be used)
is incapable of two way communication
What you are seeing is easily explained. There are more (T?)RX
stations on on the latest & greatest mode, not that it is
technically superior in any way.
as to the question on how well with an efficient antenna, What
am I missing.
"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it,
does it make a sound?"
Do you foresee a "problem"?
My low output WSPR beacon on a bit of wire gets heard,
It can be argued it's further compromised.
My meagre signal is still further flattened by the BIG guns
running 500mW....
I'm one of those "awkward" people who all sit on top of each
other, middle of the window.
Why do I do that deliberately, because it gives me easy(ier)
numbers to flag the frequency differences
should someone receive me......
On your comment that you may re-try wspr, now that you have a
couple of radio's possessing more stable oscillators.
How much did they cost Verses the costs for a proven solution of
a QRP-Labs U3S transmitter & ProgRock or VFO Kit / Receiver
kit and a GPS kit.
In your favour the new radio's probably do modes & freq
capabilities different to the U3S etc.
But *you didn't have to upgrade to new radios in order to meet
the requirements for WSPR?* / the "original" radios could be on
another band or mode you originally purchased them for?
I don't need to convince you, or anyone else. There is no one
size fit's all.
I feel my U3 does me.
regards Alan
On 04/06/2019 16:31, Bill Cromwell wrote:
Hi Alan,
I don't use WSPR at all. Once (or twice) upon a time I tried
WSPR but failed completely. Toys like WSPR give new meaning to
frequency stability for an amateur. "Good enough" is still
good enough but that tied to requirements of different modes.
I may try it again one of these days now that I have 'more
stable' oscillators in a couple of radios. Let me write that
on the white-board.
I do use FT8 as a propagation indicator without ever
transmitting anything. The station call sign we are actually
copying is clearly listed so the band is open to (from) there.
The station (s)he is working is also listed so we can consider
that path too, even if we cannot hear the other station (I
often can).
How well would it work if you deployed an intentionally
efficient antenna?
73,
Bill?? KU8H
On 6/4/19 11:15 AM, Alan de G1FXB via Groups.Io wrote:
Hi Victor,
You may be surprised just how good the WSPR mode can be,
with no / minimal effort..
I run a random length of wire (no more than 15feet)?? pinned
to the facia board approx 9 foot above ground level on a
stable block.
No ATU, no counterpoise or secondary ground rod connection.
I don't claim to be heard on all continents at any one time,
I use WSPR as a propagation indicator, not as an automated
WAC certificate collection tool.....
I do reach the other side of the world when band conditions
are good,
and have beyond the norm spots on 10Mtrs (low VHF) so
suggesting sporadic E, etc, etc.Single BS170 as supplied by
Hans in my kit, fed with 5V in recognition of no ATU
matching, through a 3dB attenuator to restrict the worse
case SWR seen by the PA to 2:1?? (Previously unaware of
existence of everlasting BS170's)
It's being running pretty much 24/7/365 since 2013, (It's a
U3 so is at a disadvantage to the later U3S design having a
less efficient "PA" configuration.
Never more than a day or two down time, most often caused by
a "brown out" on the power feed to the field.
power changes per band, I don't recall more than 100mW
measured on any band?? even at it's sweet spot at on the LF
bands
With the U3S expect circa 250mW
Further crippled by the fact it band hops 160-10MTRs so
doesn't hammer every two minute cycle on what ever is the
best choice band at anyone time.
Check one of the WSPR reporting sites?
Personally think it's good value & have got my monies
worth
In all probability you will do better...
regards Alan
On 04/06/2019 01:04, Viktors Miske KC8CKZ wrote:
Well, my Ultimate 3s arrived today!
(Along with some extras).?? Hopefully have it up and
running by the 4th of July.
But stage 2 of the project comes to mind, that radiating
gizmo often referred to as an antenna.?? Personally I plan
on building a multi band Fan antenna (dipole).?? At the
house I have a 40' tree, but it would have to be at a 45
degree angle.?? I may set up in the local park at times
where I can easily go horizontal at 60' (small park, but
has 5 Banyan trees).
Just curious on what everyone else runs for their
beacon.?? And apologize if this topic is either off, or
been covered.
Victor
KC8CKZ
|
|
|
David Latchum <w1vr73@...>
One thing I have learned....don't let conventional wisdom stuff your pipe with the wrong tobacco. Some folks are more zealous then others and some handle their opinion like a treasure chest.
Hangin there and enjoy a great tekky hobby!
You deserve it! Cheers 73 Dave W1VR
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 6:45 PM TrueBlue < 44-40@...> wrote: On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 05:04 PM, Viktors Miske KC8CKZ wrote:
But stage 2 of the project comes to mind, that radiating gizmo often referred to as an antenna.
Jeeze...
After a couple of years of struggle, frustration with getting sense about QRPp antenna design from so many self-ordained "experts" has caused me to walk away from ham radio as a bad job. :(
And it's all about the antenna.
There is NO aspect of antenna design or application -- absolutely none -- that will not be persuasively contradicted by some other "expert." This is no exaggeration. If possible it's an understatement.
For a scientific subject presumably based in Physics, with absolute rights and wrongs, this realization was shocking and infinitely depressing. Even the information from the ARRL is frequently contradictory.
I'm at an age where climbing trees and falling off the roof are not attractive pastimes. I had hoped to do serious research, get a good antenna for my situation up properly on the first try, and then move on to the next step. That never happened. It was like hitting a brick wall. It was like a bad dream. It was like Kafka.
Instead of a subject demonstrating intellectual rigor, you get a hysterical uproar of superstition, augury and hearsay (all helpfully driven by deep emotional investment) passing as fact, which it is not. All DKE, all the time.
"As Dunning has suggested, the very trouble with ignorance is that it can feel just like expertise."
Here, as just one random example of hundreds: Is the optimum QRPp antenna installation different from the optimum general ham antenna installation for the same frequency? Yes or no. I've seen the arguments, some of which even sound persuasive. Who's right?
[shrug] WHO KNOWS?
So, the ~40' run of wire I stapled up down my hallway as a "temporary test" when I first powered up my U3S two years ago is still there The U3S still runs 24/7 and I check the Internet occasionally to see if anything interesting has fallen into my virtual lobster pot. Sometimes it has, usually not. That's where my experiment began and ended.
Now, everyone will be furious with me for pointing all this out. Just watch.
But they know it's true.
|
|
|
Bill,
off topic here but an easy way to check ur frequency accuracy and stability is using the FreqCal function with WSJT, its at the bottom under the mode selection. It also takes into account ur sound card but usually their close enough not to worry abt it. And don't forget ur PC's system clock should be within + - 1 second all tho I'v decoded stations that were almost 3 seconds off.
Try using WWV, I found most SW and broadcast stations are off by a few hertz.
good luk !
73 N8AUM
|
|
|
Not sure what happened, was just curious on what others ran... lol
Oh well, been a ham 23 years now, and after becoming bored last fall, upgraded my license to play on some of the more fun bands. (Mainly ran digital on 2/440, on my homebrew Jpole). For now, running very QRP, just going to start off with a center fed 1/2 wave. A no brainer project (my one brain cell gets irked if I over work it)...
Oh, and while I'm here, does anyone have a clue on how to key the U3s? Manual said it will work for a manual cw xmiter, but see no point in the schematic for this (basically, don't want to run CW, just need to key down the transmitter for testing purposes before I release it into the real world). There's a pad on the pc board marked KEY, which is off pin 19 of the MCU, but thats a control line for an amp or xmit led kind of thing. If someone has a clue, please do chime in.
Victor
|
|
|
