[Lowfer] CW Beacon Now On-74.549 kHz...

[Bill Cromwell]

Hi John,

Even though I just replied to a SDR list message with a comment about 
"real" radios I have been avoiding the suggestion that SDR rigs or WSPR 
is not "real". Aside from that my own personal preferences are similar 
to what you have said. I might be interested in trying to use WSPR for 
*realtime* two way communication - although it would obviously be slow. 
Until recently I have been listening for the guys who are transmitting 
old fashioned CW. I have seen some QRSS signals, too but they were too 
fuzzy to 'read' on my screen. Maybe needs to 'scroll' faster. I have 
copied some of them with my RAK but now I have that down for repair 
(first time ever for a 70 year old radio). I have been listening near 
600 meters with a BC-453 but I don't have the lower frequencies (below 
190 kc) until the RAK is back on line.

Maybe some people like you and I can try WSPR on for size in *real* 
QSOs. In my case you won't get internet reporting AND my frequency 
readout might be a couple of millihertz off (probably more) <evil grin>. 
My display seems able to accommodate that. Besides the RAK I need a 
better antenna way down low and then maybe I can be a 'regular' player, too.

73,

Bill  KU8H

On 09/29/2013 04:40 PM, JD wrote:
> I understand, Bob.  From my perspective, QRSS and DFCW are better examples
> of "real" radio anyhow, because they require human interaction to read and
> interpret.  WSPR is basically a machine communication protocol, not really a
> transmission mode.  Nobody seems to use the real underlying JT mode itself
> for either beaconing or station-to-station contacts on LF.
>
> Sure, I can see the benefit of a propagation reporting system, although it's
> something which ought to be done on a consistent and more or less scheduled
> basis, as on HF.  But that's really not how people use WSPR at LF.  It seems
> more like a way of collecting confirmation of half-contacts with mostly
> unattended radios and computers.  I personally can't get enthused about a
> protocol that requires users to feel they have to be connected to the
> Internet to get full benefit.  "Have your machine call my machine and we'll
> exhange a signal report some time."  Kind of defeats the point of radio,
> IMO.
>
> None the less, since that's what folks enjoy doing, I'll try not be a
> curmudgeon and actually practice tuning in WSPR-15 myself somehow.  Given
> that I can't get Internet service where I listen, bugs in the reporting
> software are no problem for me anyway! ;>)
>
> If anyone within daytime coverage range (or night, if it ever gets quiet
> enough again here) wants to schedule some WSPR-15 and doesn't care that
> automatic spot reporting may not work, please post a day or so in advance if
> possible.  As with Bob's Friday test, I'm sure real live people will be glad
> to post results, even if the 'net lets you down.
>
> John D