[Lowfer] WSPR vs. Opera

[Douglas D. Williams]

Interesting test, Jay. Thanks for posting it.

I've been reluctant to try Opera, because the web site looked "suspicious"
to me last time I had a peek, and I remember some discussion on the RSGB
low frequency reflector last year about possible malware or spyware being
introduced via the Opera software. There seems to be a good bit of activity
happening now in Europe, so perhaps those suspicions are unfounded.

I did try WSPR (receiving) back when Andy experimented with it last year.
He had a good bit of success, if I remember correctly. It was a constant
battle keeping everyone on the WSPR "net" (or whatever it's called)
informed that his transmissions were of a Part 15 experimental nature, and
he finally pulled the plug. But some impressive distance receptions were
achieved, if I remember correctly.

Not sure how well WSPR would stack up against QRSS.

I like the WSPR interface and the graphical representation of distances.

-Doug KB4OER

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 8:11 PM, <jrusgrove at comcast.net> wrote:

> On 8/23/12 WD2XES and WD2XNS conducted a 'heads up' test of WSPR vs OP4 on
> 136 kHz. The test started
> at 2230Z on 8/23/12 (in daylight), continued throughout the night, and
> concluded at 1030Z on 8/24/12
> (in daylight). Conditions were normal for a summer evening with typical
> amounts of static. Distance
> between XES and XNS is 72 miles.
>
> At the WD2XES transmitting end John combined both WSPR and OP4 signals
> into a common phasing
> transmitter, amplifier and transmitting antenna. Transmitted power levels
> were identical for each
> mode and very QRP - 60 mW or less. WSPR and OP4 frequencies were within a
> kHz of each other.
>
> At the WD2XNS receiving end a common receiving antenna was used feeding a
> single GPS disciplined
> receiver. Audio output from the receiver was applied to a single sound
> card / computer setup which
> ran an instance of each program.
>
> Results can be found at http://www.w1vd.com/WSPROP4082312A.pdf .
>
> Notes:
>
> 1) At 0230Z John made a significant reduction in transmitted power level
> to better explore the weak
> signal performance of the two modes. This produced the desired results
> with 'at the threshold'
> receptions through 0420Z. No receptions were noted between 0420Z to 0902Z
> and were probably due to
> an increased static level during that period. Signals climbed back out of
> the noise again at 0902Z
> and reception continued through the testing period.
>
> 2) The OP4 results were 'time shifted' to align with the corresponding
> WSPR start times.
>
> 3) There are a few instances where the OP4 results are not spaced on
> exactly 4 minute intervals ...
> this is likely caused by Opera reporting 'slipping' into the following
> minute.
>
> Conclusion:
>
> WSPR has an advantage over OP4 in weak signal performance. Also, keep in
> mind that WSPR requires
> half the amount of transmission time and transmits more information. In
> our opinion, OP8 would be
> more in line with WSPR in terms of weak signal performance. In that case
> WSPR gets the job done in
> one fourth the time taken by OP8 and transmits more information.
>
>
> Jay W1VD  WD2XNS  WE2XGR/2
> John W1TAG  WD2XES  WE2XGR/3
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Lowfer mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/lowfer
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Lowfer at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>